Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies

Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12T16:52:24Z

On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> > > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > > > Hi Viresh,
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Viresh,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that
> > > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can
> > > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they
> > > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls
> > > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let's focus on cpus.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w)
> > > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer
> > > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g.
> > > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the
> > > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus
> > > >>> or set of cpus.
> > > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the
> > > >>> requests it receives on these M controls.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the
> > > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform
> > > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system
> > > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while
> > > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same
> > > >>> clock domain).
> > > >>
> > > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the
> > > >> same cpufreq policy.
> > > >
> > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI
> > > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware
> > > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs).
> > > >
> > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some
> > > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes.
> > > >
> > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either:
> > > >
> > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to
> > > > send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do
> > > > aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock
> > > > domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell
> > > > which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is
> > > > interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy.
> > > > This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced.
> > > >
> > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow:
> > > > - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information
> > > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core
> > > > information for each CPU.
> > > > - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information
> > > > down to the drivers.
> > > > - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold
> > > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for
> > > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the
> > > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule
> > > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq
> > > > changes (b).
> > >
> > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like
> > > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light.
> > >
> > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed
> > > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this
> > > cpumask changed [1].
> > > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus'
> > > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for
> > > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this.
> > > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk
> > > domain when sw coordination is in use [2].
> > >
> > > My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the
> > > 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore
> > > that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same
> > > policy.
> > >
> > > This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds
> > > the real hw clock domains in the policy.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do
> > > > you think?
> > > >
> > > > *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose,
> > > > while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this!
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ionela.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used:
> > >
> > > CPU: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> > > Type: A A A A B B B B
> > > Cluster: [ ]
> > > perf-controls: [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > > perf-dependency: [ ] [ ]
> > > HW clock: [ ] [ ]
> > >
> > > The firmware will present 8 controls to the OS and each control is mapped to a
> > > cpu device via the standard dt. This is done so we can achieve hw coordination.
> > > What is required in these systems is to present to OS the information of which
> > > cpus belong to which clock domain. In other words, when hw coordinates we don't
> > > have any way at present in dt to understand how these cpus are dependent
> > > each other, from performance perspective (as opposed to ACPI where we have
> > > _PSD). Hence my proposal for the new cpu-perf-dependencies.
> > > This is regardless whether we decide to go for either a policy per-cpu or a
> > > policy per-domain.
> > >
> > > Hope it helps.
> >
> > Oh yes, I get it now. Finally. Thanks for helping me out :)
> >
> > So if I can say all this stuff in simple terms, this is what it will
> > be like:
> >
> > - We don't want software aggregation of frequencies and so we need to
> > have per-cpu policies even when they share their clock lines.
> >
> > - But we still need a way for other frameworks to know which CPUs
> > share the clock lines (that's what the perf-dependency is all about,
> > right ?).
> >
> > - We can't get it from SCMI, but need a DT based solution.
> >
> > - Currently for the cpufreq-case we relied for this on the way OPP
> > tables for the CPUs were described. i.e. the opp-table is marked as
> > "shared" and multiple CPUs point to it.
> >
> > - I wonder if we can keep using that instead of creating new bindings
> > for exact same stuff ? Though the difference here would be that the
> > OPP may not have any other entries.
>
> Well summarised, sorry for chiming in late. I could have not summarised
> any better. Just saw the big thread and was thinking of summarising.
> If the last point on OPP is possible(i.e. no OPP entries but just use
> it for fetch the information) for $subject patch is trying to achieve,
> then it would be good.
>

Just to put in my two pennies worth: using opp-shared (in possibly empty
OPP table) as alternative to cpu-perf-dependencies sounds good enough
to me as well.

Thanks,
Ionela.

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep