Hi,
On Friday 13 Sep 2024 at 20:05:50 (+0800), Jie Zhan wrote:
>
> Hi Ionela,
>
> On 12/09/2024 17:43, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > A possible (slimmer) alternative implementation for you to consider
> > (this merges patches 1 & 2):
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > index bafa32dd375d..c16be9651a6f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ static void cppc_scale_freq_workfn(struct kthread_work *work)
> >
> > perf = cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(cpu_data, &cppc_fi->prev_perf_fb_ctrs,
> > &fb_ctrs);
> > + if (!perf)
> > + perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf;
> > +
>
> I think it's better to just return here.
> If feedback counters are successfully read but unchanged, the following
> calculation and update in cppc_scale_freq_workfn() is meaningless because it
> won't change anything.
Agreed!
>
> > cppc_fi->prev_perf_fb_ctrs = fb_ctrs;
> >
> > perf <<= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> > @@ -726,7 +729,7 @@ static int cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data,
> >
> > /* Check to avoid divide-by zero and invalid delivered_perf */
> > if (!delta_reference || !delta_delivered)
> > - return cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf;
> > + return 0;
>
> This makes sense to me.
> Here is probably why Patch 2 looks bulky.
>
> >
> > return (reference_perf * delta_delivered) / delta_reference;
> > }
> > @@ -736,7 +739,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
> > struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0 = {0}, fb_ctrs_t1 = {0};
> > struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> > struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data;
> > - u64 delivered_perf;
> > + u64 delivered_perf = 0;
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (!policy)
> > @@ -747,19 +750,22 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
> > cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> >
> > ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t0);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > - udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
> > -
> > - ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t1);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return 0;
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
> > + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t1);
> > + }
> > + if (!ret)
> > + delivered_perf = cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(cpu_data, &fb_ctrs_t0,
> > + &fb_ctrs_t1);
>
> TBH, 'if (!ret)' style looks very strange to me.
> We haven't done so anywhere in cppc_cpufreq, so let's keep consistency and make
> it easier for people to read and maintain?
I agree it's a bit of a difficult read, that's why I only sent my code
as a suggestion. I did like the benefit of not having to have two
different calls to cppc_perf_to_khz() and making the code below common
for the error and non-error paths. But it's up to you.
>
> > + if ((ret == -EFAULT) || !delivered_perf) {
> > + if (cppc_get_desired_perf(cpu, &delivered_perf))
> > + delivered_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf;
>
> will take this.
>
> > + }
> >
> > - delivered_perf = cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(cpu_data, &fb_ctrs_t0,
> > - &fb_ctrs_t1);
> > + if (delivered_perf)
> > + return cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps, delivered_perf);
> >
> > - return cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps, delivered_perf);
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > disclaimer: not fully checked so likely not "production ready" code :)
> >
> > Hope it helps,
> > Ionela.
> >
> >>
> >> static int cppc_cpufreq_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
> >> --
> >> 2.33.0
> >>
> >
>
> How about this? merged patch 1 & 2 as well.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index bafa32dd375d..411303f2e8cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,9 @@ static void cppc_scale_freq_workfn(struct kthread_work *work)
>
> perf = cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(cpu_data, &cppc_fi->prev_perf_fb_ctrs,
> &fb_ctrs);
> + if (!perf)
> + return;
> +
> cppc_fi->prev_perf_fb_ctrs = fb_ctrs;
>
> perf <<= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
> @@ -726,7 +729,7 @@ static int cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data,
>
> /* Check to avoid divide-by zero and invalid delivered_perf */
> if (!delta_reference || !delta_delivered)
> - return cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf;
> + return 0;
>
> return (reference_perf * delta_delivered) / delta_reference;
> }
> @@ -748,18 +751,32 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu)
>
> ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t0);
> if (ret)
> - return 0;
> + goto out_err;
>
> udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
>
> ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t1);
> if (ret)
> - return 0;
> + goto out_err;
>
> delivered_perf = cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(cpu_data, &fb_ctrs_t0,
> &fb_ctrs_t1);
You need a check here for !delivered_perf (when at least one of the
deltas is 0) in which case it would be good to take the same error path
below. Something like:
if(delivered_perf)
return cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps, delivered_perf);
else
ret = -EFAULT;
That's why I did the tricky if/else dance above as we need to take the
error path below for multiple cases.
Thanks,
Ionela.
>
> return cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps, delivered_perf);
> +
> +out_err:
> + /*
> + * Feedback counters could be 0 when cores are powered down.
> + * Take desired perf for reflecting frequency in this case.
> + */
> + if (ret == -EFAULT) {
> + if (cppc_get_desired_perf(cpu, &delivered_perf))
> + delivered_perf = cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf;
> +
> + return cppc_perf_to_khz(&cpu_data->perf_caps, delivered_perf);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int cppc_cpufreq_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
> ---
>
> Thanks indeed!
> Jie
