Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu

[Sumit Gupta]

On 12/03/24 14:04, Beata Michalska wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> With the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) being already wired up with
> sched tick and making use of relevant (core counter and constant
> counter) AMU counters, getting the current frequency for a given CPU
> on supported platforms can be achieved by utilizing the frequency scale
> factor which reflects an average CPU frequency for the last tick period
> length.
> 
> The solution is partially based on APERF/MPERF implementation of
> arch_freq_get_on_cpu.
> 
> Suggested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> index 1a2c72f3e7f8..42cb19c31719 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
>   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>   #include <linux/init.h>
>   #include <linux/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
> +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h>
> 
>   #include <asm/cpu.h>
>   #include <asm/cputype.h>
> @@ -88,18 +90,31 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
>    * initialized.
>    */
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) =  1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev);
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev);
>   static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus;
> 
> +struct amu_cntr_sample {
> +       u64             arch_const_cycles_prev;
> +       u64             arch_core_cycles_prev;
> +       unsigned long   last_update;
> +       seqcount_t      seq;
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_cntr_sample, cpu_amu_samples) = {
> +       .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_amu_samples.seq)
> +};
> +
>   void update_freq_counters_refs(void)
>   {
> -       this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt());
> -       this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt());
> +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples);
> +
> +       amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev = read_corecnt();
> +       amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev = read_constcnt();
>   }
> 
>   static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
>   {
> +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples, cpu);
> +
>          if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_present_mask))
>                  return false;
> 
> @@ -108,8 +123,8 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
>                  return false;
>          }
> 
> -       if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) ||
> -                    !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) {
> +       if (unlikely(!amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev ||
> +                    !amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev)) {
>                  pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu);
>                  return false;
>          }
> @@ -152,20 +167,27 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate)
> 
>   static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void)
>   {
> +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples);
>          u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt;
>          u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale;
> 
> -       prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev);
> -       prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev);
> +       prev_const_cnt = amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev;
> +       prev_core_cnt = amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev;
> +
> +       write_seqcount_begin(&amu_sample->seq);
> 
>          update_freq_counters_refs();
> 
> -       const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev);
> -       core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev);
> +       const_cnt = amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev;
> +       core_cnt = amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev;
> 
> +       /*
> +        * This should not happen unless the AMUs have been reset and the
> +        * counter values have not been resroted - unlikely
> +        */
>          if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt ||
>                       const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt))
> -               return;
> +               goto leave;
> 
>          /*
>           *          /\core    arch_max_freq_scale
> @@ -182,6 +204,10 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void)
> 
>          scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
>          this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale);
> +
> +       amu_sample->last_update = jiffies;
> +leave:
> +       write_seqcount_end(&amu_sample->seq);
>   }
> 
>   static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
> @@ -189,6 +215,61 @@ static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
>          .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick,
>   };
> 
> +#define AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS      20
> +
> +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> +{
> +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample;
> +       unsigned long last_update;
> +       unsigned int seq;
> +       unsigned int freq;
> +       u64 scale;
> +
> +       if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, amu_fie_cpus) || !arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu))
> +               return 0;
> +
> +retry:
> +       amu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples, cpu);
> +
> +       do {
> +               seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&amu_sample->seq);
> +               last_update = amu_sample->last_update;
> +       } while (read_seqcount_retry(&amu_sample->seq, seq));
> +
> +       /*
> +        * For those CPUs that are in full dynticks mode,
> +        * and those that have not seen tick for a while
> +        * try an alternative source for the counters (and thus freq scale),
> +        * if available for given policy
> +        */
> +       if (time_is_before_jiffies(last_update + msecs_to_jiffies(AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS))) {
> +               struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +               int ref_cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
> +
> +               if (cpumask_intersects(housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK),
> +                                      policy->cpus))
> +                       ref_cpu = cpumask_nth_and(cpu, policy->cpus,
> +                                                 housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK));
> +

This is looking for any other HK CPU within same policy for counters.
AFAIU, cpumask_nth_and() will return small_cpumask_bits/nr_cpu_ids
if the number of bits in both masks is different. Could you check
again if the current change is fine or needs something like below.
BTW, we have one CPU per policy.

   cpumask_and(&mask, policy->cpus, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK));
   retry:
	....
	cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, cpumask_of(cpu));
	ref_cpu = cpumask_any(&mask);

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

> +               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> +               if (ref_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || ref_cpu == cpu)
> +                       /* No alternative to pull info from */
> +                       return 0;
> +               cpu = ref_cpu;
> +               goto retry;
> +       }
> +       /*
> +        * Reversed computation to the one used to determine
> +        * the arch_freq_scale value
> +        * (see amu_scale_freq_tick for details)
> +        */
> +       scale = arch_scale_freq_capacity(cpu);
> +       freq = scale * arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu);
> +       freq >>= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> +
> +       return freq;
> +}
> +
>   static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>   {
>          int cpu;
> --
> 2.25.1
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for AArch64 AMUv1-based arch_freq_get_on_cpu

[Sumit Gupta]

Hi Beata,

>> On Tuesday 12 Mar 2024 at 08:34:28 (+0000), Beata Michalska wrote:
>>> Introducing arm64 specific version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu, cashing on
>>> existing implementation for FIE and AMUv1 support: the frequency scale
>>> factor, updated on each sched tick, serves as a base for retrieving
>>> the frequency for a given CPU, representing an average frequency
>>> reported between the ticks - thus its accuracy is limited.
>>>
>>> The changes have been rather lightly (due to some limitations) tested on
>>> an FVP model.
>>>
>>> Relevant discussions:
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240229162520.970986-1-vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com/
>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/7eozim2xnepacnnkzxlbx34hib4otycnbn4dqymfziqou5lw5u@5xzpv3t7sxo3/
>>> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231212072617.14756-1-lihuisong@huawei.com/
>>> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZIHpd6unkOtYVEqP@e120325.cambridge.arm.com/T/#m4e74cb5a0aaa353c60fedc6cfb95ab7a6e381e3c
>>>
>>> v3:
>>> - dropping changes to cpufreq_verify_current_freq
>>> - pulling in changes from Ionela initializing capacity_freq_ref to 0
>>>    (thanks for that!)  and applying suggestions made by her during last review:
>>>      - switching to arch_scale_freq_capacity and arch_scale_freq_ref when
>>>        reversing freq scale factor computation
>>>      - swapping shift with multiplication
>>> - adding time limit for considering last scale update as valid
>>> - updating frequency scale factor upon entering idle
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> - Splitting the patches
>>> - Adding comment for full dyntick mode
>>> - Plugging arch_freq_get_on_cpu into cpufreq_verify_current_freq instead
>>>    of in show_cpuinfo_cur_freq to allow the framework to stay more in sync
>>>    with potential freq changes
>>>
>>> Beata Michalska (2):
>>>    arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu
>>>    arm64: Update AMU-based frequency scale factor on entering idle
>>>
>>> Ionela Voinescu (1):
>>>    arch_topology: init capacity_freq_ref to 0
>>>
>>
>> Should there have been a patch that adds a call to
>> arch_freq_get_on_cpu() from show_cpuinfo_cur_freq() as well?
>>
>> My understanding from this [1] thread and others referenced there is
>> that was something we wanted.
>>
> Right, so I must have missunderstood that, as the way I did read it was that
> it is acceptable to keep things as they are wrt cpufreq sysfs entries.
> 
> ---
> BR
> Beata
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2cfbc633-1e94-d741-2337-e1b0cf48b81b@nvidia.com/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ionela.
>>

Yes, the change to show_cpuinfo_cur_freq from [1] is needed.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230606155754.245998-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu

[Beata Michalska]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:13:18PM +0530, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/03/24 14:04, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > 
> > 
> > With the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) being already wired up with
> > sched tick and making use of relevant (core counter and constant
> > counter) AMU counters, getting the current frequency for a given CPU
> > on supported platforms can be achieved by utilizing the frequency scale
> > factor which reflects an average CPU frequency for the last tick period
> > length.
> > 
> > The solution is partially based on APERF/MPERF implementation of
> > arch_freq_get_on_cpu.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >   1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > index 1a2c72f3e7f8..42cb19c31719 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
> >   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> >   #include <linux/init.h>
> >   #include <linux/percpu.h>
> > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h>
> > +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h>
> > 
> >   #include <asm/cpu.h>
> >   #include <asm/cputype.h>
> > @@ -88,18 +90,31 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void)
> >    * initialized.
> >    */
> >   static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) =  1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
> > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev);
> > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev);
> >   static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus;
> > 
> > +struct amu_cntr_sample {
> > +       u64             arch_const_cycles_prev;
> > +       u64             arch_core_cycles_prev;
> > +       unsigned long   last_update;
> > +       seqcount_t      seq;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_cntr_sample, cpu_amu_samples) = {
> > +       .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_amu_samples.seq)
> > +};
> > +
> >   void update_freq_counters_refs(void)
> >   {
> > -       this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt());
> > -       this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt());
> > +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples);
> > +
> > +       amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev = read_corecnt();
> > +       amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev = read_constcnt();
> >   }
> > 
> >   static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
> >   {
> > +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples, cpu);
> > +
> >          if ((cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) || !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_present_mask))
> >                  return false;
> > 
> > @@ -108,8 +123,8 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu)
> >                  return false;
> >          }
> > 
> > -       if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) ||
> > -                    !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) {
> > +       if (unlikely(!amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev ||
> > +                    !amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev)) {
> >                  pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu);
> >                  return false;
> >          }
> > @@ -152,20 +167,27 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate)
> > 
> >   static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void)
> >   {
> > +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples);
> >          u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt;
> >          u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale;
> > 
> > -       prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev);
> > -       prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev);
> > +       prev_const_cnt = amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev;
> > +       prev_core_cnt = amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev;
> > +
> > +       write_seqcount_begin(&amu_sample->seq);
> > 
> >          update_freq_counters_refs();
> > 
> > -       const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev);
> > -       core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev);
> > +       const_cnt = amu_sample->arch_const_cycles_prev;
> > +       core_cnt = amu_sample->arch_core_cycles_prev;
> > 
> > +       /*
> > +        * This should not happen unless the AMUs have been reset and the
> > +        * counter values have not been resroted - unlikely
> > +        */
> >          if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt ||
> >                       const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt))
> > -               return;
> > +               goto leave;
> > 
> >          /*
> >           *          /\core    arch_max_freq_scale
> > @@ -182,6 +204,10 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void)
> > 
> >          scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> >          this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale);
> > +
> > +       amu_sample->last_update = jiffies;
> > +leave:
> > +       write_seqcount_end(&amu_sample->seq);
> >   }
> > 
> >   static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
> > @@ -189,6 +215,61 @@ static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
> >          .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick,
> >   };
> > 
> > +#define AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS      20
> > +
> > +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +       struct amu_cntr_sample *amu_sample;
> > +       unsigned long last_update;
> > +       unsigned int seq;
> > +       unsigned int freq;
> > +       u64 scale;
> > +
> > +       if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, amu_fie_cpus) || !arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu))
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +retry:
> > +       amu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples, cpu);
> > +
> > +       do {
> > +               seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&amu_sample->seq);
> > +               last_update = amu_sample->last_update;
> > +       } while (read_seqcount_retry(&amu_sample->seq, seq));
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * For those CPUs that are in full dynticks mode,
> > +        * and those that have not seen tick for a while
> > +        * try an alternative source for the counters (and thus freq scale),
> > +        * if available for given policy
> > +        */
> > +       if (time_is_before_jiffies(last_update + msecs_to_jiffies(AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS))) {
> > +               struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> > +               int ref_cpu = nr_cpu_ids;
> > +
> > +               if (cpumask_intersects(housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK),
> > +                                      policy->cpus))
> > +                       ref_cpu = cpumask_nth_and(cpu, policy->cpus,
> > +                                                 housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK));
> > +
> 
> This is looking for any other HK CPU within same policy for counters.
> AFAIU, cpumask_nth_and() will return small_cpumask_bits/nr_cpu_ids
> if the number of bits in both masks is different. Could you check
> again if the current change is fine or needs something like below.
> BTW, we have one CPU per policy.
> 
>   cpumask_and(&mask, policy->cpus, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK));
>   retry:
> 	....
> 	cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, cpumask_of(cpu));
> 	ref_cpu = cpumask_any(&mask);
>
At this point this is indeed bogus though for a different reason.
I've rewritten that part a bit, though still, this will bail out for single-cpu
policies.

---
BR
Beata


> Thank you,
> Sumit Gupta
> 
> > +               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> > +               if (ref_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || ref_cpu == cpu)
> > +                       /* No alternative to pull info from */
> > +                       return 0;
> > +               cpu = ref_cpu;
> > +               goto retry;
> > +       }
> > +       /*
> > +        * Reversed computation to the one used to determine
> > +        * the arch_freq_scale value
> > +        * (see amu_scale_freq_tick for details)
> > +        */
> > +       scale = arch_scale_freq_capacity(cpu);
> > +       freq = scale * arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu);
> > +       freq >>= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +       return freq;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> >   {
> >          int cpu;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> > 

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for AArch64 AMUv1-based arch_freq_get_on_cpu

[Beata Michalska]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:22:22PM +0530, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> Hi Beata,
> 
> > > On Tuesday 12 Mar 2024 at 08:34:28 (+0000), Beata Michalska wrote:
> > > > Introducing arm64 specific version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu, cashing on
> > > > existing implementation for FIE and AMUv1 support: the frequency scale
> > > > factor, updated on each sched tick, serves as a base for retrieving
> > > > the frequency for a given CPU, representing an average frequency
> > > > reported between the ticks - thus its accuracy is limited.
> > > > 
> > > > The changes have been rather lightly (due to some limitations) tested on
> > > > an FVP model.
> > > > 
> > > > Relevant discussions:
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240229162520.970986-1-vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com/
> > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/7eozim2xnepacnnkzxlbx34hib4otycnbn4dqymfziqou5lw5u@5xzpv3t7sxo3/
> > > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231212072617.14756-1-lihuisong@huawei.com/
> > > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZIHpd6unkOtYVEqP@e120325.cambridge.arm.com/T/#m4e74cb5a0aaa353c60fedc6cfb95ab7a6e381e3c
> > > > 
> > > > v3:
> > > > - dropping changes to cpufreq_verify_current_freq
> > > > - pulling in changes from Ionela initializing capacity_freq_ref to 0
> > > >    (thanks for that!)  and applying suggestions made by her during last review:
> > > >      - switching to arch_scale_freq_capacity and arch_scale_freq_ref when
> > > >        reversing freq scale factor computation
> > > >      - swapping shift with multiplication
> > > > - adding time limit for considering last scale update as valid
> > > > - updating frequency scale factor upon entering idle
> > > > 
> > > > v2:
> > > > - Splitting the patches
> > > > - Adding comment for full dyntick mode
> > > > - Plugging arch_freq_get_on_cpu into cpufreq_verify_current_freq instead
> > > >    of in show_cpuinfo_cur_freq to allow the framework to stay more in sync
> > > >    with potential freq changes
> > > > 
> > > > Beata Michalska (2):
> > > >    arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu
> > > >    arm64: Update AMU-based frequency scale factor on entering idle
> > > > 
> > > > Ionela Voinescu (1):
> > > >    arch_topology: init capacity_freq_ref to 0
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Should there have been a patch that adds a call to
> > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu() from show_cpuinfo_cur_freq() as well?
> > > 
> > > My understanding from this [1] thread and others referenced there is
> > > that was something we wanted.
> > > 
> > Right, so I must have missunderstood that, as the way I did read it was that
> > it is acceptable to keep things as they are wrt cpufreq sysfs entries.
> > 
> > ---
> > BR
> > Beata
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2cfbc633-1e94-d741-2337-e1b0cf48b81b@nvidia.com/
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ionela.
> > > 
> 
> Yes, the change to show_cpuinfo_cur_freq from [1] is needed.
>
Noted. Will send an update including fixes and this requested change.

---
BR
Beata
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230606155754.245998-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/
> 
> Thank you,
> Sumit Gupta