From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 13:32:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4239407f-2676-45c4-9730-70493e56e36c@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241219192144.2744863-1-naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
On 12/19/2024 13:21, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> The previous approach introduced roundoff errors during division when
> calculating the boost ratio. This, in turn, affected the maximum
> frequency calculation, often resulting in reporting lower frequency
> values.
>
> For example, on the Glinda SoC based board with the following
> parameters:
>
> max_perf = 208
> nominal_perf = 100
> nominal_freq = 2600 MHz
>
> The Linux kernel previously calculated the frequency as:
> freq = ((max_perf * 1024 / nominal_perf) * nominal_freq) / 1024
> freq = 5405 MHz // Integer arithmetic.
>
> With the updated formula:
> freq = (max_perf * nominal_freq) / nominal_perf
> freq = 5408 MHz
>
> This change ensures more accurate frequency calculations by eliminating
> unnecessary shifts and divisions, thereby improving precision.
>
> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
Thanks, this makes sense to me.
But looking at it, we should have the same problem with lowest nonlinear
freq as it goes through the same conversion process. Would you mind
fixing that one too?
Gautham, Perry,
Is there something non-obvious I'm missing about why it was done this
way? It looks like it's been there since the start.
>
> Changes in V2:
> 1. Rebase on superm1.git/linux-next branch
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index d7b1de97727a..02a851f93fd6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -908,9 +908,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
> {
> int ret;
> u32 min_freq, max_freq;
> - u32 nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
> + u32 highest_perf, nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
> u32 lowest_nonlinear_perf, lowest_nonlinear_freq;
> - u32 boost_ratio, lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
> + u32 lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
> struct cppc_perf_caps cppc_perf;
>
> ret = cppc_get_perf_caps(cpudata->cpu, &cppc_perf);
> @@ -927,10 +927,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
> else
> nominal_freq = cppc_perf.nominal_freq;
>
> + highest_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
> nominal_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf);
> -
> - boost_ratio = div_u64(cpudata->highest_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
> - max_freq = (nominal_freq * boost_ratio >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
> + max_freq = div_u64((u64)highest_perf * nominal_freq, nominal_perf);
>
> lowest_nonlinear_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf);
> lowest_nonlinear_ratio = div_u64(lowest_nonlinear_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-19 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-19 19:21 [PATCH v2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 19:32 ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
2024-12-19 20:10 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 20:15 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 21:08 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-20 10:09 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-20 6:16 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-27 5:49 ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-01-07 19:06 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-01-08 4:03 ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
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=4239407f-2676-45c4-9730-70493e56e36c@amd.com \
--to=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naresh.solanki@9elements.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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