From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-172.mta1.migadu.com (out-172.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A309197A6B for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:17:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724944624; cv=none; b=S9uQojC8sNqG+8ylHH4hswlaNUkIb3Y8f4eHeokSKTevf7Cn4Oo9JxCBbcQ+mKIrxjOTA+xQDFDOAASRjEZo830rrSfYlMb5tzCzMgbmK3v3U00bYyY9yflKLZFH4ZjYtLCEEvr06bAeUgDI3fKDIdsukg2MUCD9r8xPHbOJchE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724944624; c=relaxed/simple; bh=umXi7o6r5DtojGlpVGMWHvYSw9XLm0jedNBDdM0VDFw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oOJcFa9jzdsAKnv4AK5mjW3+J5lnUgQBo1u3zpK8ENdsOKS9hjdOGFw4PL/UlqEvOYs/BtORS30GY3Jgbi9P/BhEKMmXEPTWWt3Z++OzK9j5BVhP1z3e37hpZaExv2qTrEMSP/+PxZ4qUSkHN5qP35CalrTZP+oM/7h45lVmHn4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=h4B65G2B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="h4B65G2B" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:16:57 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1724944620; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9N3q5TzPU80O98ibN8yUzqkgODNoqP8ou42r0Lcqe20=; b=h4B65G2BuB3Zsg8/pQAKUSujyH6tDjcEONs0pe2OXp8SLcfsmUrm+7uMUO8PYvFVFHZ5UD +VjX54mnygNrhjuabOL3DG71RL1jobQfkb7U4FYGWgN28kYxtI+m2zkRK8h0SN9ctvHZdn 8MVgaIeGECD/clgsQJY/UflEC6WhFWg= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Andrea Righi To: Mario Limonciello Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" , Mario Limonciello , Borislav Petkov , Perry Yuan , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "open list:ACPI" , "open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" , changwoo@igalia.com, David Vernet , Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Drop some uses of cpudata->hw_prefcore Message-ID: References: <20240826211358.2694603-1-superm1@kernel.org> <20240826211358.2694603-9-superm1@kernel.org> <61b96549-2969-4b64-a40d-f91f614ec3ab@amd.com> <39b25272-83e9-442c-9cc3-185c4e5cd277@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39b25272-83e9-442c-9cc3-185c4e5cd277@amd.com> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:01:48AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 8/29/2024 07:52, Andrea Righi wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:27:44PM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > Hello Andrea, > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:20:50AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:38:45AM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > I had thought this was a malfunction in the behavior that it reflected the > > > > > > current status, not the hardware /capability/. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which one makes more sense for userspace? In my mind the most likely > > > > > > consumer of this information would be something a sched_ext based userspace > > > > > > scheduler. They would need to know whether the scheduler was using > > > > > > preferred cores; not whether the hardware supported it. > > > > > > > > > > The commandline parameter currently impacts only the fair sched-class > > > > > tasks since the preference information gets used only during > > > > > load-balancing. > > > > > > > > > > IMO, the same should continue with sched-ext, i.e. if the user has > > > > > explicitly disabled prefcore support via commandline, the no sched-ext > > > > > scheduler should use the preference information to make task placement > > > > > decisions. However, I would like to see what the sched-ext folks have > > > > > to say. Adding some of them to the Cc list. > > > > > > > > IMHO it makes more sense to reflect the real state of prefcore support > > > > from a "system" perspective, more than a "hardware" perspective, so if > > > > it's disabled via boot command line it should show disabled. > > > > > > > > From a user-space scheduler perspective we should be fine either way, as > > > > long as the ABI is clearly documented, since we also have access to > > > > /proc/cmdline and we would be able to figure out if the user has > > > > disabled it via cmdline (however, the preference is still to report the > > > > actual system status). > > > > > > Thank you for confirming this. > > > > > > > > > > > Question: having prefcore enabled affects also the value of > > > > scaling_max_freq? Like an `lscpu -e`, for example, would show a higher > > > > max frequency for the specific preferred cores? (this is another useful > > > > information from a sched_ext scheduler perspective). > > > > > > Since the scaling_max_freq is computed based on the boost-numerator, > > > at least from this patchset, the numerator would be the same across > > > all kinds of cores, and thus the scaling_max_freq reported will be the > > > same across all the cores. > > > > I see, so IIUC from user-space the most reliable way to detect the > > fastest cores is to check amd_pstate_highest_perf / amd_pstate_max_freq, > > right? I'm trying to figure out a way to abstract and generalize the > > concept of "fast cores" in sched_ext. > > Right now the best way to do this is to look at the > amd_pstate_precore_ranking file. Ok. > > In this series there has been some discussion of dropping it though in favor > of looking at the highest perf file. I don't believe we're concluded one > way or another on it yet though. > > > > > Also, is this something that has changed recently? I see this on an > > AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7975WX 32-Cores running a 6.8 kernel: > > > > $ uname -r > > 6.8.0-40-generic > > You're missing the preferred core patches on this kernel. They landed in > 6.9, it's better to upgrade to 6.10.y or 6.11-rc. So, if I move to 6.9+ I should see the same max frequency across all the CPUs and I can use amd_pstate_precore_ranking to determine the subset of fast cores. Thanks for the clarification. -Andrea