From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com,
ionela.voinescu@arm.com, perry.yuan@amd.com,
mario.limonciello@amd.com, ray.huang@amd.com,
zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, corbet@lwn.net, robert.moore@intel.com,
lenb@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, rafael@kernel.org,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, treding@nvidia.com,
jonathanh@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com, ksitaraman@nvidia.com,
sanjayc@nvidia.com, nhartman@nvidia.com, bbasu@nvidia.com,
rdunlap@infradead.org, gautham.shenoy@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] cpufreq: CPPC: update policy min/max when toggling auto_select
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 15:53:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e80be28-df9c-4c73-a8fd-a28cf3f8f3ad@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251105113844.4086250-8-sumitg@nvidia.com>
On 11/5/25 12:38, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> When CPPC autonomous selection (auto_select) is enabled or disabled,
> the policy min/max frequency limits should be updated appropriately to
> reflect the new operating mode.
>
> Currently, toggling auto_select only changes the hardware register but
> doesn't update the cpufreq policy constraints, which can lead to
> inconsistent behavior between the hardware state and the policy limits
> visible to userspace and other kernel components.
>
> When auto_select is enabled, preserve the current min/max performance
> values to maintain user-configured limits. When disabled, the hardware
> operates in a default mode where the OS directly controls performance,
> so update the policy limits accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta<sumitg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index a425ad575aa6..d1b44beaddda 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -646,6 +646,26 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u64 val,
> #define cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, val, update_reg, update_policy) \
> cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(policy, val, update_reg, update_policy, false)
>
> +static int cppc_cpufreq_update_autosel_val(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, bool auto_sel)
> +{
> + struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
> + unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> + int ret;
> +
> + pr_debug("cpu%d, auto_selcurr:%u,new:%d\n", cpu, cpu_data->perf_caps.auto_sel, auto_sel);
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&cppc_cpufreq_update_autosel_config_lock);
Would it be possible to explain why we need this mutex specifically for
auto_sel ?
> +
> + ret = cppc_set_auto_sel(cpu, auto_sel);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_warn("Failed to set auto_sel=%d for CPU%d (%d)\n", auto_sel, cpu, ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + cpu_data->perf_caps.auto_sel = auto_sel;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> @@ -879,8 +899,49 @@ static ssize_t show_auto_select(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
> return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", val);
> }
>
> -static ssize_t store_auto_select(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> - const char *buf, size_t count)
> +/**
> + * cppc_cpufreq_update_auto_select - Update autonomous selection config for policy->cpu
> + * @policy: cpufreq policy
> + * @enable: enable/disable autonomous selection
> + */
> +static int cppc_cpufreq_update_auto_select(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, bool enable)
> +{
> + struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
> + struct cppc_perf_caps *caps = &cpu_data->perf_caps;
> + u64 min_perf = caps->lowest_nonlinear_perf;
> + u64 max_perf = caps->nominal_perf;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (enable) {
> + if (cpu_data->perf_ctrls.min_perf)
> + min_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.min_perf;
> + if (cpu_data->perf_ctrls.max_perf)
> + max_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.max_perf;
> + }
I think the min/max performance values are still relevant when auto_sel is
disabled/absent. So:
- enabling/disabling autonomous selection
- setting min/max perf values
should not have any dependency I think.
> +
> + /*
> + * Set min/max performance registers and update policy constraints.
> + * When enabling: update both registers and policy.
> + * When disabling: update policy only.
> + * Continue even if min/max are not supported, as EPP and autosel
> + * might still be supported.
> + */
> + ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_min_perf(policy, min_perf, enable, true);
> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, max_perf, enable, true);
> + if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = cppc_cpufreq_update_autosel_val(policy, enable);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t store_auto_select(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count)
> {
> bool val;
> int ret;
> @@ -889,7 +950,7 @@ static ssize_t store_auto_select(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - ret = cppc_set_auto_sel(policy->cpu, val);
> + ret = cppc_cpufreq_update_auto_select(policy, val);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-27 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-05 11:38 [PATCH v4 0/8] Enhanced autonomous selection and improvements Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 1/8] cpufreq: CPPC: Add generic helpers for sysfs show/store Sumit Gupta
2025-11-10 10:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2025-11-11 11:20 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 2/8] ACPI: CPPC: Add cppc_get_perf() API to read performance controls Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:53 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-11-28 14:01 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-28 15:05 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 3/8] ACPI: CPPC: extend APIs to support auto_sel and epp Sumit Gupta
2025-11-12 15:02 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-11-18 9:17 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:54 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-09 18:10 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 4/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf Sumit Gupta
2025-11-06 10:30 ` kernel test robot
2025-11-07 10:00 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-07 20:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-11-11 11:06 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-13 10:56 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-11-18 9:34 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:54 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-09 16:38 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 5/8] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for perf_limited register Sumit Gupta
2025-11-13 11:35 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-11-18 10:20 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:54 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-09 17:22 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 6/8] cpufreq: CPPC: Add sysfs for min/max_perf and perf_limited Sumit Gupta
2025-11-13 12:41 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-11-18 10:46 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 7/8] cpufreq: CPPC: update policy min/max when toggling auto_select Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:53 ` Pierre Gondois [this message]
2025-11-28 14:08 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-05 11:38 ` [PATCH v4 8/8] cpufreq: CPPC: add autonomous mode boot parameter support Sumit Gupta
2025-11-13 15:15 ` Ionela Voinescu
2025-11-26 13:32 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-27 14:53 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-11-28 14:29 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-28 15:05 ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-01 14:09 ` Sumit Gupta
2025-11-10 11:00 ` [PATCH v4 0/8] Enhanced autonomous selection and improvements Viresh Kumar
2025-11-18 8:45 ` Jie Zhan
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=4e80be28-df9c-4c73-a8fd-a28cf3f8f3ad@arm.com \
--to=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=ksitaraman@nvidia.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=nhartman@nvidia.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
--cc=sanjayc@nvidia.com \
--cc=sumitg@nvidia.com \
--cc=treding@nvidia.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
--cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
/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).