public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <superm1@kernel.org>,
	"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
	Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>
Cc: "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Rework CPPC enabling
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:20:24 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d52622c3-e750-4147-a03d-fa19c397d347@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <767f4c49-7183-4aef-940f-3a811319eb11@kernel.org>

On 2/25/2025 5:29 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> +    /* Enable autonomous mode for EPP */
>>> +    if (cppc_state == AMD_PSTATE_ACTIVE) {
>>> +        /* Set desired perf as zero to allow EPP firmware control */
>>> +        perf_ctrls.desired_perf = 0;
>>> +        ret = cppc_set_perf(policy->cpu, &perf_ctrls);
>>
>> I'm thinking do we need this "setting of desired_perf" as a part of shmem_cppc_enable,
>> one thing is we're not doing it in the "msr_" counterpart
>> also, I guess this would be taken care as part of amd_pstate_epp_set_policy()->amd_pstate_epp_update_limit()->amd_pstate_update_perf()
> 
> Great point, agreed will drop it.
> 
>>
>>>       }
>>>   -    cppc_enabled = enable;
>>>       return ret;
>>>   }
>>>     DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(amd_pstate_cppc_enable, msr_cppc_enable);
>>>   -static inline int amd_pstate_cppc_enable(bool enable)
>>> +static inline int amd_pstate_cppc_enable(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>   {
>>> -    return static_call(amd_pstate_cppc_enable)(enable);
>>> +    return static_call(amd_pstate_cppc_enable)(policy);
>>>   }
>>>     static int msr_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
[Snip]
>>>   @@ -1649,31 +1591,21 @@ static int amd_pstate_epp_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   -static int amd_pstate_epp_reenable(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> -{
>>> -    int ret;
>>> -
>>> -    ret = amd_pstate_cppc_enable(true);
>>> -    if (ret)
>>> -        pr_err("failed to enable amd pstate during resume, return %d\n", ret);
>>> -
>>> -
>>> -    return amd_pstate_epp_update_limit(policy);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>   static int amd_pstate_epp_cpu_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>   {
>>>       struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>>>       int ret;
>>>   -    pr_debug("AMD CPU Core %d going online\n", cpudata->cpu);
>>> +    pr_debug("AMD CPU Core %d going online\n", policy->cpu);
>>>   -    ret = amd_pstate_epp_reenable(policy);
>>> +    ret = amd_pstate_cppc_enable(policy);
>>>       if (ret)
>>>           return ret;
>>> +
>>>       cpudata->suspended = false;
>>
>> Do we need this here?, shouldn't only resume() have this statement?
> 
> The reason I had in mind for it was this sequence:
> * Suspend
> * CPU goes offline
> * CPU goes online
> * Resume
> 
> But I don't think that's realistic even with parallel boot.  I will drop this.

Also I have one doubt, why do we need to keep track if the system is suspended ?

Won't the idle subsystem have safeguards to prevent CPU offline while the system 
is being suspended ? Haven't gone through that code, just checking if you have an 
idea about it.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-25  4:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-19 21:02 [PATCH v4 00/19] amd-pstate cleanups Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 01/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Invalidate cppc_req_cached during suspend Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 02/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Show a warning when a CPU fails to setup Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 03/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop min and max cached frequencies Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  4:51   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 04/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move perf values into a union Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  5:01   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 05/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Overhaul locking Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  5:23   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 06/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop `cppc_cap1_cached` Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 07/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Use _free macro to free put policy Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 08/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Allow lowest nonlinear and lowest to be the same Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  5:26   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 09/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Drop SUCCESS and FAIL enums Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  6:05   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-25  0:05     ` Mario Limonciello
2025-02-25  4:07       ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 10/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Run on all of the correct CPUs Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  6:09   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 11/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Adjust variable scope for amd_pstate_ut_check_freq() Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 12/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Replace all AMD_CPPC_* macros with masks Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 13/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Cache CPPC request in shared mem case too Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 14/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move all EPP tracing into *_update_perf and *_set_epp functions Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 15/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Update cppc_req_cached for shared mem EPP writes Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:02 ` [PATCH v4 16/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop debug statements for policy setting Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:03 ` [PATCH v4 17/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Rework CPPC enabling Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  9:21   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-24 23:59     ` Mario Limonciello
2025-02-25  4:50       ` Dhananjay Ugwekar [this message]
2025-02-19 21:03 ` [PATCH v4 18/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Stop caching EPP Mario Limonciello
2025-02-19 21:03 ` [PATCH v4 19/19] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop amd_pstate_epp_cpu_offline() Mario Limonciello
2025-02-24  9:25   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2025-02-24 23:46     ` Mario Limonciello

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=d52622c3-e750-4147-a03d-fa19c397d347@amd.com \
    --to=dhananjay.ugwekar@amd.com \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
    --cc=superm1@kernel.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