From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Cc: Juan Martinez <juan.martinez@amd.com>,
rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, perry.yuan@amd.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Kaushik Reddy S <kaushik.reddys@amd.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix MinPerf MSR value for performance policy
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:43:28 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWnXCDYEzFlyijWv@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25a4653c-4d95-44c7-a957-c3ac9da214ad@amd.com>
Hello Juan, Mario,
On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 03:24:31PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 1/7/26 3:19 PM, Juan Martinez wrote:
> > When the CPU frequency policy is set to CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE
> > (which occurs when EPP hint is set to "performance"), the driver
> > incorrectly sets the MinPerf field in CPPC request MSR to nominal_perf
> > instead of lowest_nonlinear_perf.
> >
> > According to the AMD architectural programmer's manual volume 2 [1],
> > in section "17.6.4.1 CPPC_CAPABILITY_1", lowest_nonlinear_perf represents
> > the most energy efficient performance level (in terms of performance per
> > watt). The MinPerf field should be set to this value even in performance
> > mode to maintain proper power/performance characteristics.
> >
> > This fixes a regression introduced by commit 0c411b39e4f4c ("amd-pstate: Set
> > min_perf to nominal_perf for active mode performance gov"), which correctly
> > identified that highest_perf was too high but chose nominal_perf as an
> > intermediate value instead of lowest_nonlinear_perf.
> >
> > The fix changes amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit() to use lowest_nonlinear_perf
> > instead of nominal_perf when the policy is CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE.
> >
> > [1] https://docs.amd.com/v/u/en-US/24593_3.43
> > AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
> > Section 17.6.4.1 CPPC_CAPABILITY_1
> > (Referenced in commit 5d9a354cf839a)
> >
> > Fixes: 0c411b39e4f4c ("amd-pstate: Set min_perf to nominal_perf for active mode performance gov")
> > Tested-by: Kaushik Reddy S <kaushik.reddys@amd.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Juan Martinez <juan.martinez@amd.com>
>
> I think this change is reasonable, but I'd like to get Gautham's comments as
> the original author of 0c411b39e4f4c.
The active mode performance governor was intended to run the cores at
the highest possible frequency at all times. Originally the min_perf
was set to max_perf, but we observed frequency throttling in TDP
constrained environments as mentioned in commit 0c411b39e4f4c
("amd-pstate: Set min_perf to nominal_perf for active mode performance
gov"), and as a result min_perf was lowered to nominal_perf so that
the frequency doesn't drop below the nominal_perf as long as the
power/thermal constraints allow it.
This is the behaviour that is desired by customers. So unless you are
observing a performance regression when the min_perf is set to
nominal_perf, I would like to retain this behaviour.
When the governor is switched to "powersave", the min_perf is lowered
to "lowest_nonlinear_perf" by default to match the description in
section 17.6.4.1 CPPC_CAPABILITY_1 of the APM volume 2.
That said, I think we should document this in the code as to why the
min_perf is being set to nominal_perf when
cpudata->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE.
Juan, do you want to give it a try ?
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-16 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-07 21:19 [PATCH] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix MinPerf MSR value for performance policy Juan Martinez
2026-01-07 21:24 ` Mario Limonciello
2026-01-16 6:13 ` Gautham R. Shenoy [this message]
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=aWnXCDYEzFlyijWv@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com \
--to=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=juan.martinez@amd.com \
--cc=kaushik.reddys@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=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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