From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Aaron Rainbolt <arainbolt@kfocus.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mmikowski@kfocus.org,
Perry.Yuan@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:35:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a7790c74-2bec-4a24-b6e5-223c4e1ed372@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZnHSKiaYf2tIQo58@kf-XE>
On 6/18/2024 13:30, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:09:19PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 6/17/2024 21:54, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
>>> acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter
>>>
>>> The _OSC is supposed to contain a bit indicating whether the hardware
>>> supports CPPC v2 or not. This bit is not always set, causing CPPC v2 to
>>> be considered absent. This results in severe single-core performance
>>> issues with the EEVDF scheduler.
>>>
>>> To work around this, provide a new kernel parameter,
>>> "processor.ignore_osc_cppc_bit", which may be used to ignore the _OSC
>>> CPPC v2 bit and act as if the bit was enabled. This allows CPPC to be
>>> properly detected even if not "enabled" by _OSC, allowing users with
>>> problematic hardware to obtain decent single-core performance.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Michael Mikowski <mmikowski@kfocus.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Rainbolt <arainbolt@kfocus.org>
>>
>> This sounds like a platform bug and if we do accept a patch like this I
>> think we need a lot more documentation about the situation.
>
> It is a platform bug, yes. See my previous email,
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/d01b0a1f-bd33-47fe-ab41-43843d8a374f@kfocus.org/T/#u
> (I meant to send this email as a reply to that one, but failed to do so.)
>
>> Can you please share more information about your hardware:
>> 1) Manufacturer?
>
> Carbon Systems, models Iridium 14 and Iridium 16.
>
>> 2) CPU?
>
> Intel Core i5-13500H.
>
>> 3) Manufacturer firmware version?
>
> The systems use an AMI BIOS with version N.1.10CAR01 according to
> dmidecode. This is the latest BIOS available from the manufacturer.
>
>> 4) If it's AMD what's the AGESA version?
>
> Both affected systems are Intel-based and use heterogenous cores, not AMD.
>
>> And most importantly do you have the latest system firmware version from
>> your manufacturer? If not; please upgrade that first.
>
> We are using the latest firmware. (We're trying to work with the ODM to
> potentially get a firmware update, but since this affects more than just
> us and a firmware update may not be possible for everyone, this would
> likely be worth providing a kernel-level workaround for.)
>
> I can easily provide more detailed information - would the full output of
> 'dmidecode' and 'acpidump' be useful?
Does your BIOS offer any options for these?
Intel(R) SpeedStep(TM)
Intel Speed Shift Technology(TM)
I believe you need those enabled for this to work properly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-18 18:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-18 2:54 [PATCH] acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 17:09 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-06-18 18:30 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 18:35 ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
2024-06-18 18:52 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 18:58 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-06-18 19:25 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 19:27 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-06-18 20:25 ` [PATCH V2 RFC] " Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 20:58 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-18 21:24 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-06-18 21:47 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 4:33 ` [PATCH V3] " Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 5:08 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-06-19 17:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-06-19 17:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-06-19 17:44 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 17:56 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 21:39 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 22:19 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-20 1:05 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-20 15:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-06-19 17:34 ` Aaron Rainbolt
2024-06-19 17:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-06-18 18:31 ` [PATCH] " kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a7790c74-2bec-4a24-b6e5-223c4e1ed372@amd.com \
--to=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=Perry.Yuan@amd.com \
--cc=arainbolt@kfocus.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmikowski@kfocus.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox