From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@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] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:01:13 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f919e9d0-c466-4e4b-b32c-3713f6468987@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABqG17h_b+_c2oBPyKWjUjHUVe0Nis+PyvgfvzAMdA1Dcd=rMA@mail.gmail.com>
On 12/19/2024 03:21, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 at 00:50, Mario Limonciello
> <mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/18/2024 13:00, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>>> Refactor to calculate max-freq more accurately.
>>
>> Can you add some more detail about what you're finding?
>> What was it before, what is it now, why is it more accurate?
> Sure.
> The previous approach had some roundoff error due to division compute
> when calculating boost ratio.
> Which intern affected max-freq calculation resulting in reporting lower value
> In my Glinda SoC board,
> See below calculations with below values:
> max_perf = 208
> nominal_perf = 100
> normal_freq = 2600
>
> How linux kernel calculates:
> freq = ( (max_perf * 1024 / nominal_perf) * normal_freq) / 1024
> freq = 5405 // Integer arithmatic.
>
> With the changes
> freq = (max_perf * normal_freq) / nominal_perf
> freq = 5408
>
>
Ah, thanks! Please include some of this info in the commit message for
the next version.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 5 ++---
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> index d7630bab2516..78a2cbd14952 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>>> u64 numerator;
>>> u32 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);
>>> @@ -914,8 +914,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>>> ret = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(cpudata->cpu, &numerator);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>> - boost_ratio = div_u64(numerator << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
>>> - max_freq = (nominal_freq * boost_ratio >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) * 1000;
>>> + max_freq = div_u64(numerator * nominal_freq * 1000, nominal_perf);
>>
>> This doesn't apply currently, because of some changes in the
>> superm1.git/linux-next branch; specifically:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/superm1/c/68cb0e77b6439
>>
>> I haven't sent this out to linux-pm yet so it could be in linux-next,
>> but will be doing that soon. So can you please rebase on that branch if
>> this change still makes sense?
> Sure. Will do
>
Thanks!
> Regards,
> Naresh Solanki
>>
>>>
>>> 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 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-18 19:00 [PATCH] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation Naresh Solanki
2024-12-18 19:20 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-19 9:21 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 15:01 ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
2024-12-19 16:33 ` Naresh Solanki
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=f919e9d0-c466-4e4b-b32c-3713f6468987@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