On 04/19/2016 02:12 PM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > + Ryan > > Hi Al, > > On 18 April 2016 at 20:11, Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as >> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect. >> >> What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables >> in whatever scale was used to provide them. However, the ACPI spec >> defines the CPPC values as unitless abstract numbers. Internal kernel >> structures such as struct perf_cap, in contrast, expect these values >> to be in KHz. When these struct values get reported via sysfs, the >> user space tools also assume they are in KHz, causing them to report >> incorrect values (for example, reporting a CPU frequency of 1MHz when >> it should be 1.8GHz). >> >> While the investigation for a long term fix proceeds (several options >> are being explored, some of which may require spec changes or other >> much more invasive fixes), this patch forces the values read by CPPC >> to be read in KHz, regardless of what they actually represent. >> >> The downside is that this approach has some assumptions: >> >> (1) It relies on SMBIOS3 being used, *and* that the Max Frequency >> value for a processor is set to a non-zero value. >> >> (2) It assumes that all processors run at the same speed. This >> patch retrieves the first CPU Max Frequency from a type 4 DMI >> record that it can find. This may not be an issue, however, as a >> sampling of DMI data on x86 and arm64 indicates there is often only >> one such record regardless. >> >> For arm64 servers, this may be sufficient, but it does rely on >> firmware values being set correctly. Hence, other approaches are >> also being considered. >> >> This has been tested on three arm64 servers, with and without DMI, with >> and without CPPC support. >> >> Changes for v2: >> -- Corrected thinko: needed to have DEPENDS on DMI in Kconfig.arm, >> not SELECT DMI (found by build daemon) >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks like a good short term solution. Does it make more sense to > move this to the cppc_cpufreq driver though? Since that ties more > closely into the cpufreq framework which requires the kHz values in > sysfs. That way we can keep the cppc_acpi.c shim compliant with the > ACPI spec. (i.e. values read in cppc structures remain abstract and > unitless). Perhaps. Doing it that way made the patch a bit messier since cppc_acpi.c would set values that then had to be replaced in cppc_cpufreq.c, so initialization looked odd to me; that's how I ended up here. You do raise a good point, however; I'll look at that approach again since I could have missed an easier way to do it. > Rafael, Viresh, others, > > Any other ideas how to handle this better in the long term? > > - Decouple the cpufreq sysfs from the cppc driver and introduce its > own entries. Is it possibly to do this cleanly while still allowing > usage of cpufreq registration with existing governors? > > - Come up with a scaling factor using the PMU cycle counter at boot > before the CPPC drivers are initialized. This would use the current > freq set by some UEFI var. This would possibly require some messy > perfevents plumbing and added bootup time though. > > - .. ? > > > Cheers, > Ashwin. > The other thought that occurs to me is to go back through the perf_cap and cpufreq structs and make them more general -- perhaps store the units being used and pointers to functions to convert them to KHz. This may require separating sysfs data for perf_cap from the cpufreq sysfs data from the cppc sysfs data. But, if units are then reported out to sysfs, user space tools can do whatever conversions they want, or at least know what they're reporting instead of there being an implicit ABI between the kernel and the tools. This would be a far more invasive patch set, I think, but it still may be the right thing to do for the long term. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
