From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21FCC433ED for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CD361425 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231754AbhDWPV1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f48.google.com ([209.85.210.48]:33768 "EHLO mail-ot1-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231437AbhDWPV0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:21:26 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 92-20020a9d02e50000b029028fcc3d2c9eso23111512otl.0; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:20:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dyHZi3N5pdxOcPpODlhqYNMD7hPjAeJEWciMcHpLV44=; b=L6tstEP1CORk4EPGh7XhgdnzKdUMEqqHlScAoFgvBvNRXu4k31u57URo0BLrArPFft 0EvaECi0bt7IeStf/MAVD+DTNrNvaZkgGD4cAh1wZleePffvItHT1c61VVTDWpB8m70h C75CGQhAv9HqIr/ENq/Z5dgM8tYE+3XRs3z0Uv0mRVf2KPIt6+uceGh6rYO0XSkJ37jx y+xhSwf4pdHGdQoclMtKKcsJQRw7/YW6I2JEOvuRksiVFpwSIA+3MLSiMBZLpBkp9j6P 7XsfidC4n13jJsrs+ClCtlgFhG2S7GHm5T6fqI+DVlL0vhEHn9WDQfGoQ3M9dIwfVuPy uy1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vxT4R3rFVVpokgzSFalg+IdiDwKXxOzOYchLEqqOO11KOqeU1 704f/BeBFBT6H+RlsE43AgpYcGvoESnjv28fzM8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhi6GPBa0/pkBgbpLdeMlObjWTjJxHnIT6RwxNFOja+knnauWOh/g/i1Pa73OAykV7d9/9aVf6Lz/ZJuopB6k= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5a7:: with SMTP id 36mr3874989otd.321.1619191248310; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:20:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210423023928.688767-1-ray.huang@amd.com> <20210423125208.GA688865@hr-amd> <20210423150728.GB688865@hr-amd> In-Reply-To: <20210423150728.GB688865@hr-amd> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:20:37 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some specific generations To: Huang Rui Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Deucher, Alexander" , Jason Bagavatsingham , "Pierre-Loup A . Griffais" , "Fontenot, Nathan" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , Stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:07 PM Huang Rui wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:53:37PM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:52 PM Huang Rui wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 08:09:49PM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:40 AM Huang Rui wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum > > > > > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166 > > > > > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value > > > > > like below: > > > > > > > > > > ~ $B"* (B lscpu | grep MHz > > > > > CPU MHz: 3400.000 > > > > > CPU max MHz: 7228.3198 > > > > > CPU min MHz: 2200.0000 > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems") > > > > > Fixes: 3c55e94c0ade ("cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies") > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Jason Bagavatsingham > > > > > Tested-by: Jason Bagavatsingham > > > > > Bugzilla: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D211791&data=04%7C01%7Cray.huang%40amd.com%7C9c4d68e3c053401c4b4108d9065f38b7%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637547828334533410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=AEMijLiBtz7Tf%2F8Uh1XEd4QUclZUfafyEy48yMf4JSw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui > > > > > Cc: Alex Deucher > > > > > Cc: Nathan Fontenot > > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > Cc: Borislav Petkov > > > > > Cc: x86@kernel.org > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Changes from V1 -> V2: > > > > > - Enhance the commit message. > > > > > - Move amd_get_highest_perf() into amd.c. > > > > > - Refine the implementation of switch-case. > > > > > - Cc stable mail list. > > > > > > > > > > Changes from V2 -> V3: > > > > > - Move the update into cppc_get_perf_caps() to correct the highest perf value in > > > > > the API. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++ > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > > > index f1b9ed5efaa9..908bcaea1361 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > > > > > @@ -804,8 +804,10 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(u64, msr_misc_features_shadow); > > > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SUP_AMD > > > > > extern u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void); > > > > > +extern u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void); > > > > > #else > > > > > static inline u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void) { return 0; } > > > > > +static inline u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) { return 0; } > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > > > static inline uint32_t hypervisor_cpuid_base(const char *sig, uint32_t leaves) > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > > > > > index 347a956f71ca..aadb691d9357 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > > > > > @@ -1170,3 +1170,25 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr) > > > > > break; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > + > > > > > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data; > > > > > + u32 cppc_max_perf = 225; > > > > > + > > > > > + switch (c->x86) { > > > > > + case 0x17: > > > > > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) || > > > > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80)) > > > > > + cppc_max_perf = 166; > > > > > + break; > > > > > + case 0x19: > > > > > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) || > > > > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70)) > > > > > + cppc_max_perf = 166; > > > > > + break; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + return cppc_max_perf; > > > > > +} > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(amd_get_highest_perf); > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > > > > > index 69057fcd2c04..58e72b6e222f 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c > > > > > @@ -1107,8 +1107,12 @@ int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpunum, struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps) > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - cpc_read(cpunum, highest_reg, &high); > > > > > - perf_caps->highest_perf = high; > > > > > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) { > > > > > > > > This is a generic arch-independent file. > > > > > > > > Can we avoid adding the x86-specific check here? > > > > > > OK, I see, it will be used by ARM as well. > > > > > > Can I rollback to implementation of V2: > > > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fr%2F20210421023807.1540290-1-ray.huang%40amd.com&data=04%7C01%7Cray.huang%40amd.com%7C9c4d68e3c053401c4b4108d9065f38b7%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637547828334533410%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Pk0VKl7iSaKz%2FYQx7YfT5D1XP%2FZRfQTW6moE%2F5sS1c0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > This would work IMO, but it can be simplified somewhat AFAICS. > > > > The obvious drawback is that amd_get_highest_perf() would need to be > > called directly wherever the CPPC highest perf is needed and the > > vendor may be AMD. > > Should I send V4 to continue review (fallback to V2 actually) or you can > comment it on V2 directly? Done, thanks!