On 6/18/2024 15:25, Aaron Rainbolt wrote:
acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter
The _OSC is supposed to contain a bit indicating whether the hardware
supports CPPC v2 or not. This bit is not always set, causing CPPC v2 to
be considered absent. This results in severe single-core performance
issues with the EEVDF scheduler on heterogenous-core Intel processors.
To work around this, provide a new kernel parameter, "ignore_osc_cppc_bit",
which may be used to ignore the _OSC CPPC v2 bit and act as if the bit was
enabled. This allows CPPC to be properly detected even if not "enabled" by
_OSC, allowing users with problematic hardware to obtain decent single-core
performance.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Rainbolt <arainbolt@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
V1 -> V2: Rewrite to work in cpc_supported_by_cpu.
RFC: I have not yet tested this patch to ensure it functions properly,
nor have I attempted to compile it against mainline. My system takes
a couple of hours or so to build a kernel, and I'd like to submit this
for feedback now and test once it's sent.
Thanks, this matches what I suggested, hopefully it works when you test it.
One comment below though.
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index b600df82669d..af2d8973ba3a 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -2063,6 +2063,12 @@
could change it dynamically, usually by
/sys/module/printk/parameters/ignore_loglevel.
+ ignore_osc_cppc_bit
+ Assume CPPC is present and ignore the CPPC v2 bit from
+ the ACPI _OSC method. This is useful for working
+ around buggy firmware where CPPC is supported, but
+ _OSC incorrectly reports it as being absent.
+
ignore_rlimit_data
Ignore RLIMIT_DATA setting for data mappings,
print warning at first misuse. Can be changed via
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
index ff8f25faca3d..7346a25e68ce 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
@@ -11,6 +11,14 @@
/* Refer to drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c for the description of functions */
+static bool ignore_osc_cppc_bit;
+static int __init parse_ignore_osc_cppc_bit(char *arg)
+{
+ ignore_osc_cppc_bit = true;
+ return 0;
+}
+early_param("ignore_osc_cppc_bit", parse_ignore_osc_cppc_bit);
+
bool cpc_supported_by_cpu(void)
{
switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor) {
@@ -24,6 +32,10 @@ bool cpc_supported_by_cpu(void)
return true;
return boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CPPC);
}
+
+ if (ignore_osc_cppc_bit) {
+ return true;
+ }
I think you should move this check before the switch statement.
The reason is that such a workaround could then apply to any CPU
vendors and models that are AMD or Hygon too.
return false;
}
