On Thu, 2024-08-29 at 12:14 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Tero Kristo wrote:
>
> > Add efficiency latency control support to the TPMI uncore driver.
> > This
> > defines two new threshold values for controlling uncore frequency,
> > low
> > threshold and high threshold. When CPU utilization is below low
> > threshold,
> > the user configurable floor latency control frequency can be used
> > by the
> > system. When CPU utilization is above high threshold, the uncore
> > frequency
> > is increased in 100MHz steps until power limit is reached.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > * Converted a long sequence of if (...)'s to a switch
> >
> > .../uncore-frequency-common.h | 4 +
> > .../uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c | 158
> > +++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 160 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-
> > frequency-common.h b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-
> > frequency/uncore-frequency-common.h
> > index 4c245b945e4e..b5c7311bfa05 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-
> > common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-
> > common.h
> > @@ -70,6 +70,10 @@ enum uncore_index {
> > UNCORE_INDEX_MIN_FREQ,
> > UNCORE_INDEX_MAX_FREQ,
> > UNCORE_INDEX_CURRENT_FREQ,
> > + UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_LOW_THRESHOLD,
> > + UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD,
> > + UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD_ENABLE,
> > + UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_FREQ,
> > };
> >
> > int uncore_freq_common_init(int (*read)(struct uncore_data *data,
> > unsigned int *value,
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-
> > frequency-tpmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-
> > frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c
> > index 9fa3037c03d1..50b28b4b1fc0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-
> > tpmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-
> > tpmi.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >
> > #define UNCORE_MAJOR_VERSION 0
> > #define UNCORE_MINOR_VERSION 2
> > +#define UNCORE_ELC_SUPPORTED_VERSION 2
> > #define UNCORE_HEADER_INDEX 0
> > #define UNCORE_FABRIC_CLUSTER_OFFSET 8
> >
> > @@ -46,6 +47,7 @@ struct tpmi_uncore_struct;
> > /* Information for each cluster */
> > struct tpmi_uncore_cluster_info {
> > bool root_domain;
> > + bool elc_supported;
> > u8 __iomem *cluster_base;
> > struct uncore_data uncore_data;
> > struct tpmi_uncore_struct *uncore_root;
> > @@ -75,6 +77,10 @@ struct tpmi_uncore_struct {
> > /* Bit definitions for CONTROL register */
> > #define
> > UNCORE_MAX_RATIO_MASK GENMASK_ULL(14, 8)
> > #define
> > UNCORE_MIN_RATIO_MASK GENMASK_ULL(21, 15)
> > +#define
> > UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_RATIO_MASK GENMASK_ULL(28, 22)
> > +#define
> > UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_LOW_THRESHOLD_MASK GENMASK_ULL(38, 32)
> > +#define UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD_ENABLE BIT(39)
> > +#define
> > UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD_MASK GENMASK_ULL(46, 40)
> >
> > /* Helper function to read MMIO offset for max/min control
> > frequency */
> > static void read_control_freq(struct tpmi_uncore_cluster_info
> > *cluster_info,
> > @@ -89,6 +95,48 @@ static void read_control_freq(struct
> > tpmi_uncore_cluster_info *cluster_info,
> > *value = FIELD_GET(UNCORE_MIN_RATIO_MASK, control)
> > * UNCORE_FREQ_KHZ_MULTIPLIER;
> > }
> >
> > +/* Helper function to read efficiency latency control values over
> > MMIO */
> > +static int read_eff_lat_ctrl(struct uncore_data *data, unsigned
> > int *val, enum uncore_index index)
> > +{
> > + struct tpmi_uncore_cluster_info *cluster_info;
> > + u64 ctrl;
> > +
> > + cluster_info = container_of(data, struct
> > tpmi_uncore_cluster_info, uncore_data);
> > + if (cluster_info->root_domain)
> > + return -ENODATA;
> > +
> > + if (!cluster_info->elc_supported)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + ctrl = readq(cluster_info->cluster_base +
> > UNCORE_CONTROL_INDEX);
> > +
> > + switch (index) {
> > + case UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_LOW_THRESHOLD:
> > + *val =
> > FIELD_GET(UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_LOW_THRESHOLD_MASK, ctrl);
> > + *val *= 100;
> > + *val = DIV_ROUND_UP(*val,
> > FIELD_MAX(UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_LOW_THRESHOLD_MASK));
> > + break;
> > +
> > + case UNCORE_INDEX_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD:
> > + *val =
> > FIELD_GET(UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD_MASK, ctrl);
> > + *val *= 100;
> > + *val = DIV_ROUND_UP(*val,
> > FIELD_MAX(UNCORE_EFF_LAT_CTRL_HIGH_THRESHOLD_MASK));
>
> I wonder if DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() would be more appropriate in these
> two
> cases, rounding up isn't well justified as I think this wants to
> round it
> back to the original number to deal with the minor divergences due to
> precision loss during conversions?
Yes, this makes it sure that what is written to the file gets also read
back as the same value. Using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() will not do the
trick. Tried this out by using DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() and got following:
# echo 94 > elc_high_threshold_percent
# cat elc_high_threshold_percent
94
# echo 95 > elc_high_threshold_percent
# cat elc_high_threshold_percent
94
# echo 96 > elc_high_threshold_percent
# cat elc_high_threshold_percent
95
However, using DIV_ROUND_UP() all values from 0-100 work just fine.
-Tero
>
> Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
