On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 2:40 AM Meng, Li (Jassmine) <Li.Meng@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > Hi Rafael: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Meng, Li (Jassmine) > > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 4:27 PM > > To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > 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> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V12 4/7] cpufreq: Add a notification message that the > > highest perf has changed > > > > Hi Rafael: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9:44 PM > > > 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> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V12 4/7] cpufreq: Add a notification message that > > > the highest perf has changed > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > > > caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 10:13 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 9:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 7:38 AM Meng Li <li.meng@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ACPI 6.5 section 8.4.6.1.1.1 specifies that Notify event 0x85 > > > > > > can be emmitted to cause the the OSPM to re-evaluate the highest > > > > > > performance > > > > > > > > > > Typos above. Given the number of iterations of this patch, this > > > > > is kind of disappointing. > > > > > > > > > > > register. Add support for this event. > > > > > > > > > > Also it would be nice to describe how this is supposed to work at > > > > > least roughly, so it is not necessary to reverse-engineer the > > > > > patch to find out that. > > > > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Meng Li <li.meng@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > Link: > > > > > > > > > https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model > > > > > > .html#processor-device-notification-values > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > > > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 +++++ > > > > > > 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > > > b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c index > > > > > > 4bd16b3f0781..29b2fb68a35d > > > > > > 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c > > > > > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > > > > > > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_PERFORMANCE 0x80 > > > > > > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_POWER 0x81 > > > > > > #define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_THROTTLING 0x82 > > > > > > +#define ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED > > 0x85 > > > > > > > > > > > > MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul Diefenbaugh"); > > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ACPI > > > > > > Processor Driver"); @@ -83,6 +84,11 @@ static void > > > > > > acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) > > > > > > acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class, > > > > > > dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0); > > > > > > break; > > > > > > + case ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_HIGEST_PERF_CHANGED: > > > > > > + cpufreq_update_highest_perf(pr->id); > > > > > > > > > > And the design appears to be a bit ad-hoc here. > > > > > > > > > > Because why does it have anything to do with cpufreq? > > > > > > > > Well, clearly, cpufreq can be affected by this, but why would it be > > > > not affected the same way as in the > > > ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_PERFORMANCE > > > > case? > > > > > > > > That is, why isn't cpufreq_update_limits() the right thing to do? > > > > > > Seriously, I'm not going to apply this patch so long as my comments > > > above are not addressed. > > [Meng, Li (Jassmine)] > > Sorry for the delayed reply to the email. > > BIOS/AGESA is responsible to issue the Notify 0x85 to OS that the preferred > > core has changed. > > It will only affect the ranking of the preferred core, not the impact policy > > limits. > > AMD P-state driver will set the priority of the cores based on the preferred > > core ranking, and prioritize selecting higher priority core to run the task. > [Meng, Li (Jassmine)] > From ACPI v6.5, Table 5.197 Processor Device Notification Values: > Hex value Description > 0x80 Performance Present Capabilities Changed. Used to notify OSPM that the number of supported processor performance states has changed. This notification causes OSPM to re-evaluate the _PPC object. See Section 8.4.5.3 for more information. > > 0x85 Highest Performance Changed. Used to notify OSPM that the value of the CPPC Highest Performance Register has changed. > > I think they are different notify events, so they need different functions to handle these events. But they effectively mean pretty much the same thing: the highest available performance state of the CPU has changed. Why would the response need to be different?
