Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency invariance

On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 13:15:04 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 12:48, Ionela Voinescu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi guys,

On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 11:49:53 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 04:54, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 23-06-21, 08:57, Qian Cai wrote:

quoted

Viresh, I am afraid I don't feel comfortable yet. I have a few new tests in
development, and will provide an update once ready.

Oh sure, np.

quoted

Also, I noticed the delivered perf is even smaller than lowest_perf (100).

quoted

# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
 ref:103377547901 del:54540736873
# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
 ref:103379170101 del:54541599117

100 * (54541599117 - 54540736873) / (103379170101 - 103377547901) = 53

I'm not sure that I understand your point. The formula above says that
cpu8 run @ 53% of nominal performance

I think this is based on a previous example Qian had where:

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/highest_perf
300
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_freq
1000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_perf
100
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/reference_perf
100

..so the 100 is not from obtaining percentage, is the reference
performance.

The logic of the formula is to obtain the delivered performance when
knowing the number of ticks for each counter, so:

So if one gets (103379170101 - 103377547901) ticks for the counter at
running at 1GHz(perf 100), what is the frequency of the core, if its
counter ticked (54541599117 - 54540736873) times in the same interval
of time?

The answer is 530MHz(perf 53), which is lower than the lowest frequency
at 1GHz(perf 100).

But the nominal_perf is 280 and not 100 if i'm not wrong so the perf
value is 148 > lowest_perf in this case

Nominal performance has no meaning here. The reference counter ticks
with the frequency equivalent to reference performance.

Nominal performance is the maximum performance when !boost. Highest
performance is the maximum performance available including boost
frequencies. So nominal performance has no impact in these translations
from counter values to delivered performance.

Hope it helps,
Ionela.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

My understanding is that the delivered perf should fail into the range between
lowest_perf and highest_perf. Is that assumption correct? This happens on
5.4-based kernel, so I am in process running your series on that system to see
if there is any differences. In any case, if it is a bug it is pre-existing,
but I'd like to understand a bit better in that front first.

Vincent:

Can that happen because of CPU idle ?

Not if the counters are implemented properly. The kernel considers that
both reference and delivered performance counters should stop or reset
during idle. The kernel would not account for idle itself.

If the reference performance counter does not stop during idle, while
the core performance counter (delivered) does stop, the behavior above
should be seen very often.

Qian, do you see these small delivered performance values often or
seldom?

Thanks,
Ionela.

quoted

quoted

--
viresh