From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C984C606A31C for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 18:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=cG6lgcgc; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=aBlL16gt 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-Unsubscribe-Post:List-Owner; bh=mUIueBQWdG7pJzf/AIIsJaKYrYTOdf4kpQUNtr0Ctak=; b=cG6lgcgclzfcX/SACffxhpq36A 4s+CFpODZThzvBN9n/uw9R9OMKV+Zw0tVSxHb3G6cJg4RYWPHUtSZaX6lMd4ghpTnTl0iyRV0WQ1/ qfyC1sITNP/42e9EUUxFx87VmQMJNx/srcBi6vM3j1IXAogMnFfFShEeZrUpa6zxHaRDNcz/XNwRP ea9o+MGmJG/Yy7o11bI4YoQm1A13wwGSgTskBjzr3EiYVortJ6j/IdFxWb4isQ8qODUN7cJ/nj0RN ATbZnvnAx0fBnGcu7LvZPL1SNIyGAE1pvHQqW1W7uCSJZUfPu+5LeIqA7zBt2F9ZO3i057qeyxPUk 4Kf6xq8Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xRDH9-00000007RbL-2fgR; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 18:42:27 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xRDH4-00000007RaU-1P7S for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 18:42:25 +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 5B2E8153B; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 10:42:18 -0800 (PST) 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 5C57E3F85F; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 10:42:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1794422541; bh=+mXScRaTXiM2JFuJLfW5CL1mReoljQvn/EcyyVOmAYA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aBlL16gt5uh1o8l6C0BKBc71miXOSdAOR5araA6h//LNtXWaweZ9nb+yFW3Y/Znri BKTLFvrYLWEfgvN9VoFEkPVRtzVRbEBPxAwyfG9rnKC9hVIXvecn4+U+8r8yeP/O9M ouE1nJET/PIJtD/8LvxwlQzgH+gGUq1kZu72bwPI= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 19:42:16 +0100 From: Beata Michalska To: Christian Loehle Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Vladimir.Murzin@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: topology: Reduce the skew for AMU feedback counter sampling Message-ID: References: <20261111124005.2688820-1-beata.michalska@arm.com> <20261111124005.2688820-4-beata.michalska@arm.com> <1493f335-a808-471f-932a-393aaa390d25@arm.com> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1493f335-a808-471f-932a-393aaa390d25@arm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261111_104222_574895_E57E2CB9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 30.32 ) X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 02:08:11PM +0000, Christian Loehle wrote: > On 11/11/26 12:39, Beata Michalska wrote: > > With the FFH support for CPPC, the AMU feedback counters, core and const > > counter, are being sampled to measure CPU performance. Checking for errata > > (which can affect both counters) between the reads delays the second > > sample and can skew the result. > > > > Take both samples in succession, then discard values from affected > > counters. This narrows the sampling interval used for CPPC feedback. > > > > Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > index 66ac67bd025e..c968fa5b0c88 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > @@ -381,29 +381,45 @@ enum cpc_ffh_ctr_id { > > CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST = 0x1, > > }; > > > > -static void cpu_read_corecnt(void *val) > > +static inline void cpu_read_corecnt(void *val) > > { > > - /* > > - * A value of 0 can be returned if the current CPU does not support AMUs > > - * or if the counter is disabled for this CPU. A return value of 0 at > > - * counter read is properly handled as an error case by the users of the > > - * counter. > > - */ > > - *(u64 *)val = this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CORECNT) ? > > - 0UL : read_corecnt(); > > + *(u64 *)val = read_corecnt(); > > } > > > > -static void cpu_read_constcnt(void *val) > > +static void cpu_try_read_corecnt(void *val) > > { > > - /* > > - * Return 0 if the current CPU is affected by a HW erratum. > > - * A value of 0 is also returned if the current CPU does not > > - * support AMUs or if the counter is disabled. A return > > - * value of 0 at counter read is properly handled as an error > > - * case by the users of the counter. > > Since you're moving this comment around, AFAICT it's not actually true? > cpu_has_amu_feat() is checked (which will return -EOPNOTSUPP) before > landing here, right? > Not entirely, no. `cpu_has_amu_feat()` verifies the support for AMUs, the extension itself (ID_AA64PFR0_EL1). Workarounds are applied on top of it. --- BR Beata > > > - */ > > - *(u64 *)val = this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CONSTCNT) ? > > - 0UL : read_constcnt(); > > + if (!this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CORECNT)) { > > + cpu_read_corecnt(val); > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * A value of 0 can be returned if the current CPU does not support AMUs > > + * or if the counter is disabled for this CPU. A return value of 0 at > > + * counter read is properly handled as an error case by the users of the > > + * counter. > > + */ > > + *(u64 *)val = 0UL; > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static inline void cpu_read_constcnt(void *val) > > +{ > > + *(u64 *)val = read_constcnt(); > > +} > > + > > +static void cpu_try_read_constcnt(void *val) > > +{ > > + if (!this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CONSTCNT)) { > > + cpu_read_constcnt(val); > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * Return 0 if the current CPU is affected by a HW erratum. > > + * A value of 0 is also returned if the current CPU does not > > + * support AMUs or if the counter is disabled. A return > > + * value of 0 at counter read is properly handled as an error > > + * case by the users of the counter. > > + */ > > + *(u64 *)val = 0UL; > > + } > > } > > > > static inline > > @@ -461,14 +477,20 @@ static void amu_read_core_const_ctrs(void *val) > > { > > struct amu_ffh_ctrs *ctrs = val; > > > > + cpu_read_corecnt(&ctrs->corecnt); > > + cpu_read_constcnt(&ctrs->constcnt); > > + > > /* > > - * cpu_read_constcnt() incurs slight latency due to the > > - * ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CONSTCNT check. > > - * Read it first to minimize the sampling skew between the const > > - * and core counters. > > + * Return 0 if the current CPU is affected by a HW erratum. > > + * A value of 0 is also returned if the current CPU does not > > + * support AMUs or if the counter is disabled. A return > > + * value of 0 at counter read is properly handled as an error > > + * case by the users of the counter. > > */ > > - cpu_read_constcnt(&ctrs->constcnt); > > - cpu_read_corecnt(&ctrs->corecnt); > > + if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CORECNT)) > > + ctrs->corecnt = 0UL; > > + if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_AMU_CONSTCNT)) > > + ctrs->constcnt = 0UL; > > } > > > > static bool cpc_ffh_reg_valid(const struct cpc_reg *reg) > > @@ -543,10 +565,10 @@ int cpc_read_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 *val) > > > > switch ((u64)reg->address) { > > case CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE: > > - ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_corecnt, val); > > + ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_try_read_corecnt, val); > > break; > > case CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST: > > - ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_constcnt, val); > > + ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_try_read_constcnt, val); > > break; > > } > > >