From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABE1145979; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:46:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734965195; cv=none; b=UfoDOIlfVIqfDwuG45U8tY2TPn482imRwHPY8jRnArmPxSNXFGk51LeapYdc0D7xoAq68x9mqHDyFcnEIN4HR3uSTGivlrc5PSrkIGSb1dX6TADtgtUdYFpuERc8c5rWpXWjy7BSlI1yTaEoN7PFABCN5uvw8aXteNrsJSWOqsY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734965195; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QvmsSOXq3sop5Ct4jazwtfW9ssQWlojjbfYOKC9mB2A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=AEwbqJVfx0IopPXRiYCsCpdrywZ5BhockotzJ9KqhvKUVerKLGYI2xZVd+AvRG1HnS07fLBtWlDQjZu6CspleLHjqhhzlxph0UNu5Yq3yuWlue2N2MQkxYQiZfw6UfTU/AftyWTwM4eaeynGwzek7gEHBE6bLaUdjl4qJ6UY/ic= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b=JBPepMeS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="JBPepMeS" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279868.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4BNBwwGF020173; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:46:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= NkQFu57Xw7aHa6drSo6fMkLlf1A2SffvDf56Onaz0Os=; b=JBPepMeSyd3m2Q4o UWlf4SzmyZb6fWYrgGmWOhK7FIetzKzvaGjDVNl6z3qRUplofX4lDxFS+MrSApf3 lmgZzqNOZRToXggbnlVWlUaWcY7LIkMLPpQ+3grO5LuucOPb+D/FbpmJQ37C1En8 lyC4y4DUUxMYFZMEQ1ubFLbWGRkzPJnipc97EnS7+nkXMvXJRjaMnEK50AJVx1Na IcDV1W7IFxlUEnzWGTfKElm+JVr8ZyU8ehyWWzJCeQG2JaNeFTBzFUGv8SdNkPFh KUnVxcXaA6IVMdl6TM7tICr0TS9eTSS42ipq7qOOg6tGrJ7+WAlZXUpkLEqAXCYB /HRrYw== Received: from nalasppmta04.qualcomm.com (Global_NAT1.qualcomm.com [129.46.96.20]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 43q7ev0dep-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com [10.47.209.196]) by NALASPPMTA04.qualcomm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 4BNEk9Bt009224 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Dec 2024 14:46:09 GMT Received: from [10.190.163.187] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.9; Mon, 23 Dec 2024 06:44:13 -0800 Message-ID: <00c27553-5466-e59a-633a-e368a6e26167@quicinc.com> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:30:46 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor Extensions Content-Language: en-US To: Johan Hovold CC: Cristian Marussi , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Ettore Chimenti References: <20241007061023.1978380-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> <8d42682b-0fa7-3962-da12-728cfe64903b@quicinc.com> <132d1404-9009-9fb5-1fb9-63eca03ce9fc@quicinc.com> From: Sibi Sankar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 0j4k8P_OsHqZvPH_hm1q_GerogBkN_h6 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 0j4k8P_OsHqZvPH_hm1q_GerogBkN_h6 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-06_09,2024-09-06_01,2024-09-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2412230133 On 12/19/24 16:07, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 05:19:25PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> On 12/5/24 21:22, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:26:55PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >>>> On 11/22/24 14:07, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> >>>>> I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T14s set up now so I gave this series a spin >>>>> there too, and there I do *not* see the above mentioned -EOPNOSUPP error >>>>> and the memlat driver probes successfully. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, this series seems to have no effect on a kernel >>>>> compilation benchmark. Is that expected? >>>> >>>> I can have a look at your tree. But memlat in general >>>> depends on the cpu frequency when your benchmarks max >>>> the cpu's the ddr/llcc are scaled accordingly by it. >>> >>> A kernel compilation should max out the CPU frequency on all cores. > > Answering my own question here; bwmon should scale the buses for > benchmarks like kernel compilations so I guess the non-existing impact > of memlat is expected here. you would see impact only in cases where you would benefit from having ddr and llcc at a higher frequency i.e. latency workloads. I usually run geekbench with and we are expected to see a big difference with and without it. > > Ettore helped me run some further benchmarks, including cachebench, but > also saw no positive (or negative) effect with this series running on an > X1E CRD (with recent firmware). > > Do you have any suggestions of benchmarks to run where the effect of > memlat should show up? What have you been using for testing? > > I did measure a possibly slightly higher (idle) power consumption with > memlat, but I guess that is also expected given the intended more > aggressive ramping of the bus clocks. > > These are the branches (and configs; johan_defconfig) we've used for > testing: > > https://github.com/jhovold/linux/tree/wip/x1e80100-6.13-rc3 > https://github.com/jhovold/linux/tree/wip/x1e80100-6.13-rc3-memlat Thanks, we'll get this sorted out. > >>>>> And does this mean that you should stick with the uppercase "MEMLAT" >>>>> string after all? The firmware on my CRD is not the latest one, but I am >>>>> using the latest available firmware for the T14s. >>>> >>>> We should stick with "memlat" if we run into a device in the >>>> wild that doesn't support "MEMLAT" >>> >>> Ok. So the updated firmware supports both strings? >> >> Sry for the delay, was out sick. Yes the updated firmware supports both >> strings. > > No worries, hope you're feeling better. > > I noticed that the firmware on the T14s indeed accepts both strings. > > Johan