[AMD Official Use Only - General]
Hi Peter:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 12:01 AM
> To: Meng, Li (Jassmine) <Li.Meng@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>; Huang, Ray
> <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shuah
> Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Fontenot, Nathan <Nathan.Fontenot@xxxxxxx>; Sharma, Deepak
> <Deepak.Sharma@xxxxxxx>; Deucher, Alexander
> <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx>; Limonciello, Mario
> <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>; Huang, Shimmer
> <Shimmer.Huang@xxxxxxx>; Yuan, Perry <Perry.Yuan@xxxxxxx>; Du,
> Xiaojian <Xiaojian.Du@xxxxxxx>; Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>; Oleksandr Natalenko
> <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Karny, Wyes <Wyes.Karny@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V9 3/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Enable amd-
> pstate preferred core supporting.
>
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
> caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:31:14AM +0800, Meng Li wrote:
>
> > +#define AMD_PSTATE_PREFCORE_THRESHOLD 166
> > +#define AMD_PSTATE_MAX_CPPC_PERF 255
>
> > +static void amd_pstate_init_prefcore(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata) {
> > + int ret, prio;
> > + u32 highest_perf;
> > + static u32 max_highest_perf = 0, min_highest_perf = U32_MAX;
>
> What serializes these things?
>
> Also, *why* are you using u32 here, what's wrong with something like:
>
> int max_hp = INT_MIN, min_hp = INT_MAX;
>
[Meng, Li (Jassmine)]
We use ITMT architecture to utilize preferred core features.
Therefore, we need to try to be consistent with Intel's implementation as much as possible.
For details, please refer to the intel_pstate_set_itmt_prio function in file intel_pstate.c. (Line 355)
I think using the data type of u32 is consistent with the data structures of cppc_perf_ctrls and amd_cpudata etc.
> > +
> > + ret = amd_pstate_get_highest_perf(cpudata->cpu, &highest_perf);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + cpudata->hw_prefcore = true;
> > + /* check if CPPC preferred core feature is enabled*/
> > + if (highest_perf == AMD_PSTATE_MAX_CPPC_PERF) {
>
> Which effectively means <255 (also, seems to suggest MAX_CPPC_PERF
> might not be the best name, hmm?)
>
> Should you not write '>= 255' then? Just in case something 'funny'
> happens?
>
[Meng, Li (Jassmine)]
OK, I will modify these.
> > + pr_debug("AMD CPPC preferred core is unsupported!\n");
> > + cpudata->hw_prefcore = false;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!amd_pstate_prefcore)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* The maximum value of highest perf is 255 */
> > + prio = (int)(highest_perf & 0xff);
>
> If for some weird reason you get 0x1ff or whatever above (dodgy BIOS never
> happens, right) then this makes sense how?
>
> Perhaps stop sending patches at break-nek speed and think for a little while
> on how to write this and not be confused?
>
[Meng, Li (Jassmine)]
If I use '>= 255' to check, the issue mentioned will not exist.
Because it will be returned when highest_perff>0xff.
>
> > + /*
> > + * The priorities can be set regardless of whether or not
> > + * sched_set_itmt_support(true) has been called and it is valid to
> > + * update them at any time after it has been called.
> > + */
> > + sched_set_itmt_core_prio(prio, cpudata->cpu);
> > +
> > + if (max_highest_perf <= min_highest_perf) {
> > + if (highest_perf > max_highest_perf)
> > + max_highest_perf = highest_perf;
> > +
> > + if (highest_perf < min_highest_perf)
> > + min_highest_perf = highest_perf;
> > +
> > + if (max_highest_perf > min_highest_perf) {
> > + /*
> > + * This code can be run during CPU online under the
> > + * CPU hotplug locks, so sched_set_itmt_support()
> > + * cannot be called from here. Queue up a work item
> > + * to invoke it.
> > + */
> > + schedule_work(&sched_prefcore_work);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Not a word about what serializes these variables.
>
> > +}
