Re: [PATCH 5/7] thermal: intel: hfi: Enable notification interrupt
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2021-11-08 09:10:20
Also in:
linux-doc, lkml
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 06:33:10PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -72,6 +78,9 @@ struct hfi_instance { u16 die_id; struct cpumask *cpus; void *hw_table; + struct delayed_work update_work; + raw_spinlock_t event_lock;
+ raw_spinlock_t interrupt_lock;
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ u64 timestamp; bool initialized; };@@ -114,6 +123,75 @@ static struct hfi_instance *hfi_instances; static struct hfi_features hfi_features; static DEFINE_MUTEX(hfi_lock); +#define HFI_UPDATE_INTERVAL HZ + +static void hfi_update_work_fn(struct work_struct *work) +{ + struct hfi_instance *hfi_instance; + + hfi_instance = container_of(to_delayed_work(work), struct hfi_instance, + update_work); + if (!hfi_instance) + return; + + /* TODO: Consume update here. */
// this here uses ->event_lock to serialize against the // interrupt below changing the data...
+}
+
+void intel_hfi_process_event(__u64 pkg_therm_status_msr_val)
+{
+ struct hfi_instance *hfi_instance;
+ int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ struct hfi_cpu_info *info;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ u64 timestamp;
+
+ if (!pkg_therm_status_msr_val)
+ return;
+
+ info = &per_cpu(hfi_cpu_info, cpu);
+ if (!info)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * It is possible that we get an HFI thermal interrupt on this CPU
+ * before its HFI instance is initialized. This is not a problem. The
+ * CPU that enabled the interrupt for this package will also get the
+ * interrupt and is fully initialized.
+ */
+ hfi_instance = info->hfi_instance;
+ if (!hfi_instance)
+ return;
+/* * If someone is already handling the interrupt, we shouldn't be * burning time waiting for them to then do more nothing. */ if (!raw_spin_trylock(&hfi_instance->interrupt_lock)) return;
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hfi_instance->event_lock, flags); + + /* + * On most systems, all CPUs in the package receive a package-level + * thermal interrupt when there is an HFI update. Since they all are + * dealing with the same update (as indicated by the update timestamp), + * it is sufficient to let a single CPU to acknowledge the update and + * schedule work to process it. + */ + timestamp = *(u64 *)hfi_instance->hw_table; + if (hfi_instance->timestamp >= timestamp) + goto unlock_spinlock;
This can go the way of the dodo.
+ + hfi_instance->timestamp = timestamp; + + memcpy(hfi_instance->table_base, hfi_instance->hw_table, + hfi_features.nr_table_pages << PAGE_SHIFT); + /* + * Let hardware and other CPUs know that we are done reading the HFI + * table and it is free to update it again. + */ + pkg_therm_status_msr_val &= THERM_STATUS_CLEAR_PKG_MASK & + ~PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS_HFI_UPDATED; + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS, pkg_therm_status_msr_val); + schedule_delayed_work(&hfi_instance->update_work, HFI_UPDATE_INTERVAL); + +unlock_spinlock: + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hfi_instance->event_lock, flags);
raw_spin_unlock(&hfi_instance->interrupt_lock);
+}