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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC9AC43458 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:35:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=EX8TNYvslZtJPYuWpXeoVUNPdf0UzXSGqa9C/8J1VLE=; b=UAY7jKPFr1QlQus913rZqwF4xR GfUP3y2hzjT9t6bcSEYm0+EWPOEPZu9bj/4GPQPiTcQNEcaR00gDcEXQHUn0yZje76aRgx+sFF0Sd R8RYsqNUV0zBcylNVwDdVK8BoYpcY7hOGbrtfqLtKG83uNuF611kLLra2Vk2m2Xm0uuDIn9gqgIfx DJ3kIkk1y0mXyI9Myhf/vldJ86a90s5tuY/mwUfKEF0NlPhTj/wFGltZoOi9SnxJWxu5sWClJVJdA vd5N2glGlyiTiBW8uLScIfcXleihSQjm9KX3bUyeRoc8aGbvnrV7eRnYSmy4f2WUq5MDzco9YQPhd v6JdtAqA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1weT05-0000000G6xH-215v; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:35:21 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1weT02-0000000G6wX-0kYW for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:35:19 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBDC22D9; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4483F3F836; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:35:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1782804914; bh=0taVGT1m4jf8+Bd5/fvY49UWd51JJF0GPZjMsn5vOUw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oLTfMik4Sv9mAkGsjjAf+7Vw1YD65vPjYpiOO3eGivwLAIwZEOqZbFzuzd+SthVgY 4DZsFldgSMW0BIm8uAG1typFraDU8wUL2m8mY3apZUbABO0JI7DWl03d1yxkjK4JVY KxYC9wZpnXlleUIJyHY1t/26eMymZHQbTBDKcMw4= Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 09:34:59 +0200 From: Beata Michalska To: Pengjie Zhang Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com, zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com, sumitg@nvidia.com, cuiyunhui@bytedance.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev, linuxarm@huawei.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, wanghuiqiang@huawei.com, xuwei5@huawei.com, lihuisong@huawei.com, yubowen8@huawei.com, wangzhi12@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: topology: read CPPC FFH feedback counters in one operation Message-ID: References: <20260410094145.4132082-1-zhangpengjie2@huawei.com> <20260410094145.4132082-3-zhangpengjie2@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260410094145.4132082-3-zhangpengjie2@huawei.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260630_003518_383393_FB5F54EC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.74 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 05:41:45PM +0800, Pengjie Zhang wrote: > arm64 implements CPPC FFH feedback-counter reads using AMU counters. > Because those counters must be sampled on the target CPU, reading the > delivered and reference counters separately widens the observation window > between them. > > Implement the paired FFH feedback-counter read hook on arm64 and sample > both AMU counters together before decoding the requested CPC register > values. > > Also factor the FFH bitfield extraction logic into a helper and reuse > it from the existing single-counter FFH read path. > > Signed-off-by: Pengjie Zhang > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > index b32f13358fbb..b90a767b2a1f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > @@ -50,6 +50,16 @@ struct amu_cntr_sample { > unsigned long last_scale_update; > }; > > +struct amu_ffh_ctrs { > + u64 corecnt; > + u64 constcnt; > +}; > + > +enum cpc_ffh_ctr_id { > + CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE = 0x0, > + CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST = 0x1, > +}; > + Those should probably go under the #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB section. > static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_cntr_sample, cpu_amu_samples); > > void update_freq_counters_refs(void) > @@ -397,7 +407,7 @@ static void cpu_read_constcnt(void *val) > } > > static inline > -int counters_read_on_cpu(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, u64 *val) > +int counters_read_on_cpu(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *val) > { > /* > * Abort call on counterless CPU. > @@ -447,24 +457,73 @@ bool cpc_ffh_supported(void) > return true; > } > > +static void amu_read_core_const_ctrs(void *val) > +{ > + struct amu_ffh_ctrs *ctrs = val; > + > + cpu_read_constcnt(&ctrs->constcnt); > + cpu_read_corecnt(&ctrs->corecnt); > +} > + > +static u64 cpc_ffh_extract_bits(const struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val) > +{ > + val &= GENMASK_ULL(reg->bit_offset + reg->bit_width - 1, > + reg->bit_offset); > + val >>= reg->bit_offset; > + > + return val; > +} > + > +static bool cpc_ffh_ctr_value(const struct cpc_reg *reg, > + const struct amu_ffh_ctrs *ctrs, u64 *val) > +{ > + switch ((u64)reg->address) { > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE: > + *val = ctrs->corecnt; > + break; > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST: > + *val = ctrs->constcnt; > + break; > + default: > + return false; > + } > + > + *val = cpc_ffh_extract_bits(reg, *val); > + return true; > +} > + > +int cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg1, u64 *val1, > + struct cpc_reg *reg2, u64 *val2) > +{ > + struct amu_ffh_ctrs ctrs; > + int ret; > + > + ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, amu_read_core_const_ctrs, &ctrs); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + if (!cpc_ffh_ctr_value(reg1, &ctrs, val1) || > + !cpc_ffh_ctr_value(reg2, &ctrs, val2)) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; Right, so there might be an issues with that: If you return EOPNOTSUPP here, that would trigger reading the registers again, this time one by one. Is that intentional ? Also counters_read_on_cpu might also return EOPNOTSUPP, in which case trying again to read the counters is pointless. I'm not entirely sure I understand the condition itself though. This will fail if either of the requested registers in not really expected. And that should probably be verified upfront ? --- BR Beata > + > + return 0; > +} > + > int cpc_read_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 *val) > { > int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > switch ((u64)reg->address) { > - case 0x0: > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE: > ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_corecnt, val); > break; > - case 0x1: > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST: > ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_constcnt, val); > break; > } > > - if (!ret) { > - *val &= GENMASK_ULL(reg->bit_offset + reg->bit_width - 1, > - reg->bit_offset); > - *val >>= reg->bit_offset; > - } > + if (!ret) > + *val = cpc_ffh_extract_bits(reg, *val); > > return ret; > } > -- > 2.33.0 >