From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF863C43617 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 23:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD677613AA for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 23:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242713AbhELXO4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 19:14:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35592 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1348145AbhELXFK (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 19:05:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BB96C0612ED; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id c22so28932646edn.7; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:59:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rOAA39qDqCF5GcRlEH9lP1dgFdhOxpfB8dof90LWcm8=; b=hLNKjvnimL2wUXU6jNr9izLQ1bDpX1InzTso4SOAbtPTdHdOo7lE6Bj/KNVVE4EStG hmUIU26AvA9r259RpOFTI8kcjfyEQwh/Yp9NlwQWe4V7vE9iw61cTjskRvDdd12UWYHm wLVUoxxgMt/c2FfeOtUBeL3LK9PziSv2sSJD2ElSuFd2YNxCEZtonbdAltNWa2ArLkPt rDGIgDlW/21p/d7AdUJO9aGtSxip/reOS+3ndUjohzH9aiAQBxW3CB08Tt//KbVZVCvQ hkyGYVFgZSwyDDVjeh1/dwXdlh2Pe6gQ/zxDfFW3MvFYMVXdRiWw8RgEmN22eAcxrz/j po7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rOAA39qDqCF5GcRlEH9lP1dgFdhOxpfB8dof90LWcm8=; b=Gmg+Qqv8Smp5BXYLKZLk4jGV3DzoCzwuXgC/9MYY4KcctjnnorUSRNiA41YTXNeTd5 vIosP0Vr1sxZGWCAxwV9cWnNiwE9gdVOTfBGij5dFe62TVKoBtsGxULQCuFZiVP3tgwV OhuWfEM/jPHhGDQaC0xvlKU6XaPHQ4zei+WagH8Q5mzLy4bMruydNJHAbadAvTphBK9b kH39RYts8RD4C7VD03O0vfLmKedr8oYQF1kld7uVd7FSfFnBn44J8MRd/vwowGL02Bq3 TXwYJ8izW07w17vyIihcQAtrG36VfvHLsLmnV6QwA5YY4rylUzXBr1PIKy2w8+M2v9Q2 egbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532g5zKoJzviZY1z70eEZvg4FexQTbTWDNGq9XCxHMYfaBfGTW8S FuN3Lw4oEKIRzZ4M0ZAWfvRJMzmd+Os= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqAsq/8o0vGsZEccm2uH2DPHHVOH4COsVvCUOPtWZj7nVcrWiyyNudekpI7Agv5a0W8rz8Yg== X-Received: by 2002:a50:ab06:: with SMTP id s6mr37598918edc.100.1620860346329; Wed, 12 May 2021 15:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (0526E777.dsl.pool.telekom.hu. [5.38.231.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u6sm775508ejn.14.2021.05.12.15.59.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 May 2021 15:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 00:59:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexander Monakov Cc: Huang Rui , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Deucher , Jason Bagavatsingham , "Pierre-Loup A . Griffais" , Nathan Fontenot , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some specific generations Message-ID: References: <20210425073451.2557394-1-ray.huang@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org * Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Huang Rui wrote: > > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum > > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166 > > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value > > like below: > > The commit message says '255', but the code: > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > > @@ -1170,3 +1170,19 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr) > > break; > > } > > } > > + > > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) > > +{ > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data; > > + > > + if (c->x86 == 0x17 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) || > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80))) > > + return 166; > > + > > + if (c->x86 == 0x19 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) || > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70))) > > + return 166; > > + > > + return 225; > > +} > > says 225? This is probably a typo? In any case they are out of sync. > > Alexander Ugh - that's indeed a good question ... Thanks, Ingo