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 A6406606A323 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 12:07:14 +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=1YcPfZxW; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=Rp3Jtoi1 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=i1WLpvyK/v+i/pOtJSHSm4Vqyb8jtIS3Jmom1fb7ALI=; b=1YcPfZxWtiGcHBP88tMS3LyjA5 6Jga2G971a3Zm6cPs99WaWDJpAJxm+Iw33Ixfj91sgeTPxQ3Z8UgTBcptnpuMlk8qwV8e5OUvoTSi y3i3FMopoDAu+QTb/bssw+WC0hzkCT7ipLPnJrnOedDVm3GsoGLzCxn8eDWlt6+f2g8MGMs8znm3q QzDmHynlFTUtYBl3jgbGq6A2o3ZPONJeV6asJgt+i2iyCrVVVEan060YtCEN/vgehBL3oB/xoovcu SmHepAtWyjV3bUkR8cCoPY9UqfgWDPGGFZhFxJIgbnPqL13rae6QTJ1r/6QvQ3sKxdXqrDW2CeaEV SG6771BQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xRTa8-00000009oXx-2Sad; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 12:07:08 +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 1xRTa5-00000009oX1-2l6Z for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 12:07:06 +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 631E01477; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 04:07:01 -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 5E7253F673; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 04:07:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1794485224; bh=+Zq51Kz78ZcESlxGtDuYhCkAPFG6+77j8JOduwbmW/w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Rp3Jtoi17XVB3tTXx6sYL2M4C9CCBMwX9FQjfS9ahiI2R3Qr5oIEO6wGPdWCQPxMJ GjIuydKL8TVA58sF8F1IqDSZkSWMXwLWoCaw5vNKeqGdWI+VxZILL0DP1xydY6Hhp+ pdLqQ2QGmTllL3nFiRBgelr+A6UWIWloG363MBhs= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 13:06:54 +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> <10a9170d-9ec7-46be-ad0f-d364c65563cd@arm.com> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10a9170d-9ec7-46be-ad0f-d364c65563cd@arm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261112_040705_806110_8BD773AC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.41 ) 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 Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 09:22:46AM +0000, Christian Loehle wrote: > On 11/11/26 18:42, Beata Michalska wrote: > > 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. > > Right, I was only referring to: > "A value of 0 is also returned if the current CPU does not support AMUs[...]" Ahh, right, this needs to be fixed. Will send v2 with this comment updated. Thanks. --- BR Beata > > > [snip] >