Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cppc_cpufreq: Use desired perf if feedback ctrs are 0 or unchanged
From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Date: 2024-09-26 06:09:12
Also in:
linux-acpi, linux-pm
在 2024/9/26 10:57, Jie Zhan 写道:
On 25/09/2024 17:28, lihuisong (C) wrote:quoted
Hi Jie, LGTM except for some trivial, Reviewed-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>Thanks.quoted
在 2024/9/19 16:45, Jie Zhan 写道:quoted
The CPPC performance feedback counters could be 0 or unchanged when the target cpu is in a low-power idle state, e.g. power-gated or clock-gated. When the counters are 0, cppc_cpufreq_get_rate() returns 0 KHz, which makes cpufreq_online() get a false error and fail to generate a cpufreq policy. When the counters are unchanged, the existing cppc_perf_from_fbctrs() returns a cached desired perf, but some platforms may update the real frequency back to the desired perf reg. For the above cases in cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(), get the latest desired perf to reflect the frequency; if failed, return the cached desired perf. Fixes: 6a4fec4f6d30 ("cpufreq: cppc: cppc_cpufreq_get_rate() returns zero in all error cases.") Signed-off-by: Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com> Reviewed-by: Zeng Heng <redacted> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <redacted> --- drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c index bafa32dd375d..e55192303a9f 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;@@ -726,11 +729,26 @@ static int cppc_perf_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data, /* Check to avoid divide-by zero and invalid delivered_perf */Now this comment can be removed, right?Didn't notice this comment, but, having a check, I think it still fits. '!delta_reference' avoids divide-by zero, and '!delta_delivered' checks invalid delivered_perf.
The comment "avoid divide-by zero" is just for the below code: "(reference_perf * delta_delivered) / delta_reference". So It is also useful, but I think It's obvious and it doesn't make much sense. The comment "avoid invalid delivered_perf" is for the return value. Now this func return zero which can't count as a valid delivered_perf, right?
So I think we just leave it unchanged.quoted
quoted
if (!delta_reference || !delta_delivered) - return cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf; + return 0; return (reference_perf * delta_delivered) / delta_reference; } +static int cppc_get_perf_ctrs_sample(int cpu, + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs *fb_ctrs_t0, + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs *fb_ctrs_t1) +{ + int ret; + + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, fb_ctrs_t0); + if (ret) + return ret; + + udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */ + + return cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, fb_ctrs_t1); +} + static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpu) { struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0 = {0}, fb_ctrs_t1 = {0};@@ -746,18 +764,29 @@ 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; + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs_sample(cpu, &fb_ctrs_t0, &fb_ctrs_t1); + if (ret) { + if (ret == -EFAULT) + goto out_invalid_counters;suggest that add some comments for ret == -EFAULT case. Because this error code depands on the implementation of cppc_get_perf_ctrs. If add a new exception case which also return -EFAULT, then this switch is unreasonable.Sure. What about adding the following comment: /* -EFAULT indicates that any of the associated CPPC regs is 0. */
Ack
.