linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "'the arch/x86 maintainers'" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"'Linux PM'" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'Eric Dumazet'" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"'Paul E. McKenney'" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	"'LKML'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [patch 00/10] x86/cpu: Consolidate APERF/MPERF code
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:08:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <005501d85503$3b00ca40$b1025ec0$@telus.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bkwwvkwa.ffs@tglx>

Hi Thomas, Rafael,

Thank you for your replies.

On 2022.04.19 14:11 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19 2022 at 20:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:32 PM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>>> For intel_pstate (active), both HWP enabled or disabled, the behaviour
>>> of scaling_cur_freq is inconsistent with prior to this patch set and other
>>> scaling driver governor combinations.
>>>
>>> Note there is no issue with " grep MHz /proc/cpuinfo" for any
>>> combination.
>>>
>>> Examples:
>>>
>>> No-HWP:
>>>
>>> active/powersave:
>>> doug@s19:~/freq-scalers/trace$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:2300418
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:2300006
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:2300005
>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
>>
>> That's because after the changes in this series scaling_cur_freq
>> returns 0 if the given CPU is idle.
>
> Which is sensible IMO as there is really no point in waking an idle CPU
> just to read those MSRs, then wait 20ms wake it up again to read those
> MSRs again.

I totally agree.
It is the inconsistency for what is displayed as a function of driver/governor
that is my concern.

>
>> I guess it could return the last known result, but that wouldn't be
>> more meaningful.
>
> Right.

How about something like this, which I realize might break something else,
but just to demonstrate:

doug@s19:~/kernel/linux$ git diff
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 80f535cc8a75..a161e75794cd 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_cur_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
        else if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && cpufreq_driver->get)
                ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu));
        else
-               ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", policy->cur);
+               ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", freq);
        return ret;
 }

Note: I left the other 0 return condition, because I do not know what uses it.

Which gives:

acpi-cpufreq/schedutil
doug@s19:~/kernel/linux$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:4100723

intel_pstate/powersave (no-HWP)
doug@s19:~/kernel/linux$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800295
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800015

intel_cpufreq/schedutil (no-HWP)
doug@s19:~/kernel/linux$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:1971265
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:2785446
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:0

Which I suggest is more consistent.

Note: because it was deleted from this thread, 
and just for reference, I'll repost the previous
intel_cpufreq/schedutil (no-HWP) output:

doug@s19:~$ grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:1067573
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800011
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800109
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq:800000

... Doug



  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-20 22:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15 19:19 [patch 00/10] x86/cpu: Consolidate APERF/MPERF code Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 01/10] x86/aperfmperf: Dont wake idle CPUs in arch_freq_get_on_cpu() Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 15:34   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 02/10] x86/smp: Move APERF/MPERF code where it belongs Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 15:40   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 03/10] x86/aperfmperf: Separate AP/BP frequency invariance init Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:04   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 04/10] x86/aperfmperf: Untangle Intel and AMD " Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:12   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 05/10] x86/aperfmperf: Put frequency invariance aperf/mperf data into a struct Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:15   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 06/10] x86/aperfmperf: Restructure arch_scale_freq_tick() Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:20   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:19 ` [patch 07/10] x86/aperfmperf: Make parts of the frequency invariance code unconditional Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:27   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:20 ` [patch 08/10] x86/aperfmperf: Store aperf/mperf data for cpu frequency reads Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:30   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:20 ` [patch 09/10] x86/aperfmperf: Replace aperfmperf_get_khz() Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:35   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-15 19:20 ` [patch 10/10] x86/aperfmperf: Replace arch_freq_get_on_cpu() Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 16:37   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-19 15:51 ` [patch 00/10] x86/cpu: Consolidate APERF/MPERF code Eric Dumazet
2022-04-19 20:39   ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-19 21:20     ` Eric Dumazet
2022-04-19 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-19 17:32 ` Doug Smythies
2022-04-19 18:49   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-04-19 21:11     ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-20 22:08       ` Doug Smythies [this message]
2022-04-25 15:45         ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-04-25 23:20           ` Doug Smythies
2022-04-19 21:56 ` Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='005501d85503$3b00ca40$b1025ec0$@telus.net' \
    --to=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).