On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 11:16:36PM +0530, Sumit Gupta wrote: > > > On 11/10/24 21:59, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 01:08:23PM GMT, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 02:54:22PM -0700, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:39:54PM GMT, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:21:14PM -0700, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 12:34:01PM GMT, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 05:41:09PM +0530, Sumit Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Beata, > > > > > > > Hi Sumit, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the patches. > > > > > > > Thank you for having a look at those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13/09/24 18:59, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > > > > > > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) being > > > > already wired up with > > > > > > > > > sched tick and making use of relevant (core counter > > > > and constant > > > > > > > > > counter) AMU counters, getting the average frequency > > > > for a given CPU, > > > > > > > > > can be achieved by utilizing the frequency scale > > > > factor which reflects > > > > > > > > > an average CPU frequency for the last tick period length. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The solution is partially based on APERF/MPERF > > > > implementation of > > > > > > > > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 109 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- snip ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > freq_comput: > > > > > > > > scale = arch_scale_freq_capacity(cpu); > > > > > > > > freq = scale * arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu); > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This boils down to the question what that function, and > > > > the information it > > > > > > > provides, represent really. The 'unknown' here simply says > > > > the CPU has been idle > > > > > > > for a while and as such the frequency data is a bit stale > > > > and it does not > > > > > > > represent the average freq the CPU is actually running at > > > > anymore, which is > > > > > > > the intention here really. Or, that the given CPU is a > > > > non-housekeeping one. > > > > > > > Either way I believe this is a useful information, instead > > > > of providing > > > > > > > stale data with no indication on whether the frequency is > > > > really the 'current' > > > > > > > one or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that is somehow undesirable we can discuss this > > > > further, though I'd rather > > > > > > > avoid exposing an interface where the feedback provided is open to > > > > > > > interpretation at all times. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to identify that the frequency reporting > > > > is unknown due to > > > > > > cpu being idle vs some other issue like being a > > > > non-housekeeping CPU? Would > > > > > > returning a value of 0 make it easier for tools to represent > > > > that the CPU is > > > > > > currently idle? > > > > > That is an option. > > > > > Another one would be to return an error for those cases. This > > > > would make it > > > > > easier to distinguish between valid frequency &/| idle CPU vs > > > > tickless CPU > > > > > (EINVAL vs ENOENT) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > That seems like a good idea but I suspect it would be confusing > > > > to the end user. > > > > > > > > If a user runs `cat > > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpuinfo_avg_freq` they would > > > > get an error in some cases or get a number in some other iterations. > > > > > > > That is a fair point but I am not entirely convinced using '0' > > > instead makes > > > things any more clearer as this is in no way a valid CPU frequency. > > > As long as we document the expected behaviour keeping the interface well > > > defined, both options should be fine I guess. > > > > > > > Another option could be to list out the reason as 'idle' or 'no entry' > > instead of > > returning EINVAL or ENOENT. These wouldn't be valid values either but > > cat on the > > sysfs node wouldn't return an error. > > > > Thanks, > > Vanshidhar > > > > Ya, listing the clear reason sounds better. > > Thank you, > Sumit Gupta > I'd still prefer returning an error as that is a clear indication on failure upon read. Furthermore, that would also make that attribute stick to single-type rule for sysfs, which is currently not the case and will not be if we return 'idle' or 'no entry'. That said, I am happy to make that change if that would be the final decision and that one is not mine, as the change is ultimately the cpufreq one. --- BR Beata > > > @Viresh: what is your opinion on that one ? > > > > > > --- > > > BR > > > Beata > > > > Thanks, > > .... > > > > > > > > > > + cpu = ref_cpu; > > > > > > > > > + goto retry; > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > > + * Reversed computation to the one used to determine > > > > > > > > > + * the arch_freq_scale value > > > > > > > > > + * (see amu_scale_freq_tick for details) > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > + scale = arch_scale_freq_capacity(cpu); > > > > > > > > > + freq = scale * arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu); > > > > > > > > > + freq >>= SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT; > > > > > > > > > + return freq; > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus) > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > int cpu; > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > 2.25.1 > > > > > > > > >