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 B3BE5C47258 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:08:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To: Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=bmRyZ9948aH3mN0CPU/nYV8XCNvO8lQLLVmSbH/zUeM=; b=tk8jo4+gNB5Wol VrOUryR0gtISZqG0mhNI9T1vLzAmpFalZNee8LIj30wcQ+FztmANJaQ17NSd1URiVOsiVCEQAuSwu /mfFNwc+GOY/G/S/zeRsw3opK7CWmEpMsh9Pnx89TLyiDQV5fNfVidHHqu5jQy2RRzmF3xRVlG4+f Mm4+BKeu2Xob3HrGH4m0z2Cmaftjx10AOqaGC22WJbNRF58t4M7l5U+tbZnJ1yx2uQwVrsPcKkbAZ drWXmL3Vf07ml01QJimdUdPboz3OeuCNyJd5UgH/M1YJDYD95kIn8nRoQyS74f6oligYYE338pmsw RbZzt6SDH3und9RgZ00A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVCBz-000000047Hb-0ZTj; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:07:59 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rVCBw-000000047Ez-373V for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:07:58 +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 35C31DA7; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 07:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.6] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8D0C3F762; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 07:07:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:07:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: scmi: Add boost frequency support Content-Language: en-US To: Sudeep Holla , Viresh Kumar Cc: Sibi Sankar , cristian.marussi@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com, sboyd@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, quic_mdtipton@quicinc.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, nm@ti.com References: <20240117110443.2060704-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> <20240123060827.a3vszziftj6pszt3@vireshk-i7> From: Dietmar Eggemann In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240131_070756_919823_29D9CBE6 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.26 ) 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: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 23/01/2024 11:15, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:38:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 17-01-24, 16:34, Sibi Sankar wrote: >>> This series adds provision to mark dynamic opps as boost capable and adds >>> boost frequency support to the scmi cpufreq driver. >>> >>> Depends on: >>> HW pressure v4: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240109164655.626085-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/ >>> scmi notification v2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/cover/20240117104116.2055349-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ >>> >>> Sibi Sankar (3): >>> OPP: Extend dev_pm_opp_data with turbo support >>> firmware: arm_scmi: Add support for marking certain frequencies as >>> boost >>> cpufreq: scmi: Enable boost support >> >> Sudeep, please lemme know if you are okay with the changes. Will apply >> them. > > I was planning to look at it once Lukasz/Dietmar confirm that this concept > doesn't change anything fundamental in the way EAS related changes work > today. I know I suggested the change as that seem to be right way to do > but I haven't analysed if this has any negative impact on the existing > features as this change will impact all the existing platform with OPPs > above sustained performance/frequency advertised from the SCMI platform > firmware. I was mostly concerned about the settings for the CPU frequency invariance implementation in [drivers/base/arch_topology.c]: #define arch_scale_freq_capacity topology_get_freq_scale But per_cpu(capacity_freq_ref, cpu) is still set to 'policy->cpuinfo.max_freq' in init_cpu_capacity_callback() which stays the same. With some extra debugging I get the following on Juno-r0 [L b b L L L]: root@juno:~# dmesg -w | grep -i "freq\|boost\|noti\|OPP\|cap" [ 1.768414] arm-scmi firmware:scmi: SCMI Notifications - Core Enabled. [ 1.793084] [1][LITTLE_CPU]:: Registered OPP[0] 450000000 [ 1.798624] [1][LITTLE_CPU]:: Registered OPP[1] 575000000 [ 1.804131] [1][LITTLE_CPU]:: Registered OPP[2] 700000000 [ 1.809552] scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add() sustained_freq=700000000 freq=775000000 [ 1.816971] [1][LITTLE_CPU]:: Registered OPP[3] 775000000 [ 1.822392] scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add() sustained_freq=700000000 freq=850000000 [ 1.829800] [1][LITTLE_CPU]:: Registered OPP[4] 850000000 [ 1.835268] enabled boost: 0 [ 1.838173] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=0 max_freq=850000 [ 1.844032] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=3 max_freq=850000 [ 1.849886] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=4 max_freq=850000 [ 1.855743] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=5 max_freq=850000 [ 1.866324] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=0 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 1.872178] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=3 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 1.878026] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=4 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 1.883874] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=5 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 1.890633] [0][BIG_CPU]:: Registered OPP[0] 450000000 [ 1.895892] [0][BIG_CPU]:: Registered OPP[1] 625000000 [ 1.901129] [0][BIG_CPU]:: Registered OPP[2] 800000000 [ 1.906286] scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add() sustained_freq=800000000 freq=950000000 [ 1.906381] [0][BIG_CPU]:: Registered OPP[3] 950000000 [ 1.917377] scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add() sustained_freq=800000000 freq=1100000000 [ 1.917468] [0][BIG_CPU]:: Registered OPP[4] 1100000000 [ 1.939237] enabled boost: 0 [ 1.942134] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=1 max_freq=1100000 [ 1.948078] init_cpu_capacity_callback() cpu=2 max_freq=1100000 [ 1.959003] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=1 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 1.964853] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=2 cpufreq_pressure=0 root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# cat boost policy*/boost 1 0 0 root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# cat policy*/scaling_available_frequencies policy*/scaling_boost_frequencies 450000 575000 700000 450000 625000 800000 775000 850000 950000 1100000 If I disable system-wide boost I see the correct influence on 'cpufreq_pressure': root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# echo 0 > boost [ 439.466682] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=1 cpufreq_pressure=280 [ 439.472797] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=2 cpufreq_pressure=280 [ 439.478889] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=0 cpufreq_pressure=79 [ 439.484852] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=3 cpufreq_pressure=79 [ 439.490843] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=4 cpufreq_pressure=79 [ 439.499621] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=5 cpufreq_pressure=79 reflecting the max frequency change from '1100000 to 800000' on CPU1,2 and from '850000 to 700000' on CPU0,3-5. root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# echo 1 > boost [ 2722.693113] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=1 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 2722.699041] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=2 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 2722.704962] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=0 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 2722.710842] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=3 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 2722.719644] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=4 cpufreq_pressure=0 [ 2722.728224] cpufreq_update_pressure() cpu=5 cpufreq_pressure=0 What doesn't work for me is to disable boost per policy: root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# echo 1 > boost root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# echo 0 > policy0/boost root@juno:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq# echo 0 > policy1/boost Here I don't see 'cpufreq_pressure' changes. BTW, what's the use case you have in mind for this feature? Is it to cap high OPPs for CPUs in a certain CPUfreq policy? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel