2019-06-01 10:08:55 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-23 03:30:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Force reporting values in KHz to fix user space interface
When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
in whatever scale was used to provide them. However, the ACPI spec
defines the CPPC values as unitless abstract numbers. Internal kernel
structures such as struct perf_cap, in contrast, expect these values
to be in KHz. When these struct values get reported via sysfs, the
user space tools also assume they are in KHz, causing them to report
incorrect values (for example, reporting a CPU frequency of 1MHz when
it should be 1.8GHz).
The downside is that this approach has some assumptions:
(1) It relies on SMBIOS3 being used, *and* that the Max Frequency
value for a processor is set to a non-zero value.
(2) It assumes that all processors run at the same speed, or that
the CPPC values have all been scaled to reflect relative speed.
This patch retrieves the largest CPU Max Frequency from a type 4 DMI
record that it can find. This may not be an issue, however, as a
sampling of DMI data on x86 and arm64 indicates there is often only
one such record regardless. Since CPPC is relatively new, it is
unclear if the ACPI ASL will always be written to reflect any sort
of relative performance of processors of differing speeds.
(3) It assumes that performance and frequency both scale linearly.
For arm64 servers, this may be sufficient, but it does rely on
firmware values being set correctly. Hence, other approaches will
be considered in the future.
This has been tested on three arm64 servers, with and without DMI, with
and without CPPC support.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2016-07-20 15:10:04 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2019-02-17 11:54:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-12-24 09:56:29 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2019-02-17 11:54:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-21 11:24:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-17 07:47:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2023-08-17 07:47:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-08-17 07:47:56 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-13 10:33:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-13 10:33:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-13 10:33:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: Avoid creating excessively large stack frames
In the process of modifying a cpufreq policy, the cpufreq core makes
a copy of it including all of the internals which is stored on the
CPU stack. Because struct cpufreq_policy is relatively large, this
may cause the size of the stack frame to exceed the 2 KB limit and
so the GCC complains when -Wframe-larger-than= is used.
In fact, it is not necessary to copy the entire policy structure
in order to modify it, however.
First, because cpufreq_set_policy() obtains the min and max policy
limits from frequency QoS now, it is not necessary to pass the limits
to it from the callers. The only things that need to be passed to it
from there are the new governor pointer or (if there is a built-in
governor in the driver) the "policy" value representing the governor
choice. They both can be passed as individual arguments, though, so
make cpufreq_set_policy() take them this way and rework its callers
accordingly. This avoids making copies of cpufreq policies in the
callers of cpufreq_set_policy().
Second, cpufreq_set_policy() still needs to pass the new policy
data to the ->verify() callback of the cpufreq driver whose task
is to sanitize the min and max policy limits. It still does not
need to make a full copy of struct cpufreq_policy for this purpose,
but it needs to pass a few items from it to the driver in case they
are needed (different drivers have different needs in that respect
and all of them have to be covered). For this reason, introduce
struct cpufreq_policy_data to hold copies of the members of
struct cpufreq_policy used by the existing ->verify() driver
callbacks and pass a pointer to a temporary structure of that
type to ->verify() (instead of passing a pointer to full struct
cpufreq_policy to it).
While at it, notice that intel_pstate and longrun don't really need
to verify the "policy" value in struct cpufreq_policy, so drop those
check from them to avoid copying "policy" into struct
cpufreq_policy_data (which allows it to be slightly smaller).
Also while at it fix up white space in a couple of places and make
cpufreq_set_policy() static (as it can be so).
Fixes: 3000ce3c52f8 ("cpufreq: Use per-policy frequency QoS")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/CAMuHMdX6-jb1W8uC2_237m8ctCpsnGp=JCxqt8pCWVqNXHmkVg@mail.gmail.com
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: 5.4+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4+
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
2020-01-26 23:40:11 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-12 19:50:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-12 19:50:06 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2022-05-30 12:04:24 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Add per_cpu efficiency_class
In ACPI, describing power efficiency of CPUs can be done through the
following arm specific field:
ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure',
'Processor Power Efficiency Class field':
Describes the relative power efficiency of the associated pro-
cessor. Lower efficiency class numbers are more efficient than
higher ones (e.g. efficiency class 0 should be treated as more
efficient than efficiency class 1). However, absolute values
of this number have no meaning: 2 isn’t necessarily half as
efficient as 1.
The efficiency_class field is stored in the GicC structure of the
ACPI MADT table and it's currently supported in Linux for arm64 only.
Thus, this new functionality is introduced for arm64 only.
To allow the cppc_cpufreq driver to know and preprocess the
efficiency_class values of all the CPUs, add a per_cpu efficiency_class
variable to store them.
At least 2 different efficiency classes must be present,
otherwise there is no use in creating an Energy Model.
The efficiency_class values are squeezed in [0:#efficiency_class-1]
while conserving the order. For instance, efficiency classes of:
[111, 212, 250]
will be mapped to:
[0 (was 111), 1 (was 212), 2 (was 250)].
Each policy being independently registered in the driver, populating
the per_cpu efficiency_class is done only once at the driver
initialization. This prevents from having each policy re-searching the
efficiency_class values of other CPUs. The EM will be registered in a
following patch.
The patch also exports acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc() to fetch the GicC
structure of the ACPI MADT table for each CPU.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-20 11:12:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-20 11:12:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Add per_cpu efficiency_class
In ACPI, describing power efficiency of CPUs can be done through the
following arm specific field:
ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure',
'Processor Power Efficiency Class field':
Describes the relative power efficiency of the associated pro-
cessor. Lower efficiency class numbers are more efficient than
higher ones (e.g. efficiency class 0 should be treated as more
efficient than efficiency class 1). However, absolute values
of this number have no meaning: 2 isn’t necessarily half as
efficient as 1.
The efficiency_class field is stored in the GicC structure of the
ACPI MADT table and it's currently supported in Linux for arm64 only.
Thus, this new functionality is introduced for arm64 only.
To allow the cppc_cpufreq driver to know and preprocess the
efficiency_class values of all the CPUs, add a per_cpu efficiency_class
variable to store them.
At least 2 different efficiency classes must be present,
otherwise there is no use in creating an Energy Model.
The efficiency_class values are squeezed in [0:#efficiency_class-1]
while conserving the order. For instance, efficiency classes of:
[111, 212, 250]
will be mapped to:
[0 (was 111), 1 (was 212), 2 (was 250)].
Each policy being independently registered in the driver, populating
the per_cpu efficiency_class is done only once at the driver
initialization. This prevents from having each policy re-searching the
efficiency_class values of other CPUs. The EM will be registered in a
following patch.
The patch also exports acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc() to fetch the GicC
structure of the ACPI MADT table for each CPU.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Add per_cpu efficiency_class
In ACPI, describing power efficiency of CPUs can be done through the
following arm specific field:
ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure',
'Processor Power Efficiency Class field':
Describes the relative power efficiency of the associated pro-
cessor. Lower efficiency class numbers are more efficient than
higher ones (e.g. efficiency class 0 should be treated as more
efficient than efficiency class 1). However, absolute values
of this number have no meaning: 2 isn’t necessarily half as
efficient as 1.
The efficiency_class field is stored in the GicC structure of the
ACPI MADT table and it's currently supported in Linux for arm64 only.
Thus, this new functionality is introduced for arm64 only.
To allow the cppc_cpufreq driver to know and preprocess the
efficiency_class values of all the CPUs, add a per_cpu efficiency_class
variable to store them.
At least 2 different efficiency classes must be present,
otherwise there is no use in creating an Energy Model.
The efficiency_class values are squeezed in [0:#efficiency_class-1]
while conserving the order. For instance, efficiency classes of:
[111, 212, 250]
will be mapped to:
[0 (was 111), 1 (was 212), 2 (was 250)].
Each policy being independently registered in the driver, populating
the per_cpu efficiency_class is done only once at the driver
initialization. This prevents from having each policy re-searching the
efficiency_class values of other CPUs. The EM will be registered in a
following patch.
The patch also exports acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc() to fetch the GicC
structure of the ACPI MADT table for each CPU.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Register EM based on efficiency class information
Performance states and energy consumption values are not advertised
in ACPI. In the GicC structure of the MADT table, the "Processor
Power Efficiency Class field" (called efficiency class from now)
allows to describe the relative energy efficiency of CPUs.
To leverage the EM and EAS, the CPPC driver creates a set of
artificial performance states and registers them in the Energy Model
(EM), such as:
- Every 20 capacity unit, a performance state is created.
- The energy cost of each performance state gradually increases.
No power value is generated as only the cost is used in the EM.
During task placement, a task can raise the frequency of its whole
pd. This can make EAS place a task on a pd with CPUs that are
individually less energy efficient.
As cost values are artificial, and to place tasks on CPUs with the
lower efficiency class, a gap in cost values is generated for adjacent
efficiency classes.
E.g.:
- efficiency class = 0, capacity is in [0-1024], so cost values
are in [0: 51] (one performance state every 20 capacity unit)
- efficiency class = 1, capacity is in [0-1024], cost values
are in [1*gap+0: 1*gap+51].
The value of the cost gap is chosen to absorb a the energy of 4 CPUs
at their maximum capacity. This means that between:
1- a pd of 4 CPUs, each of them being used at almost their full
capacity. Their efficiency class is N.
2- a CPU using almost none of its capacity. Its efficiency class is
N+1
EAS will choose the first option.
This patch also populates the (struct cpufreq_driver).register_em
callback if the valid efficiency_class ACPI values are provided.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:08 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Add per_cpu efficiency_class
In ACPI, describing power efficiency of CPUs can be done through the
following arm specific field:
ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure',
'Processor Power Efficiency Class field':
Describes the relative power efficiency of the associated pro-
cessor. Lower efficiency class numbers are more efficient than
higher ones (e.g. efficiency class 0 should be treated as more
efficient than efficiency class 1). However, absolute values
of this number have no meaning: 2 isn’t necessarily half as
efficient as 1.
The efficiency_class field is stored in the GicC structure of the
ACPI MADT table and it's currently supported in Linux for arm64 only.
Thus, this new functionality is introduced for arm64 only.
To allow the cppc_cpufreq driver to know and preprocess the
efficiency_class values of all the CPUs, add a per_cpu efficiency_class
variable to store them.
At least 2 different efficiency classes must be present,
otherwise there is no use in creating an Energy Model.
The efficiency_class values are squeezed in [0:#efficiency_class-1]
while conserving the order. For instance, efficiency classes of:
[111, 212, 250]
will be mapped to:
[0 (was 111), 1 (was 212), 2 (was 250)].
Each policy being independently registered in the driver, populating
the per_cpu efficiency_class is done only once at the driver
initialization. This prevents from having each policy re-searching the
efficiency_class values of other CPUs. The EM will be registered in a
following patch.
The patch also exports acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc() to fetch the GicC
structure of the ACPI MADT table for each CPU.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-27 11:35:27 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Force reporting values in KHz to fix user space interface
When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
in whatever scale was used to provide them. However, the ACPI spec
defines the CPPC values as unitless abstract numbers. Internal kernel
structures such as struct perf_cap, in contrast, expect these values
to be in KHz. When these struct values get reported via sysfs, the
user space tools also assume they are in KHz, causing them to report
incorrect values (for example, reporting a CPU frequency of 1MHz when
it should be 1.8GHz).
The downside is that this approach has some assumptions:
(1) It relies on SMBIOS3 being used, *and* that the Max Frequency
value for a processor is set to a non-zero value.
(2) It assumes that all processors run at the same speed, or that
the CPPC values have all been scaled to reflect relative speed.
This patch retrieves the largest CPU Max Frequency from a type 4 DMI
record that it can find. This may not be an issue, however, as a
sampling of DMI data on x86 and arm64 indicates there is often only
one such record regardless. Since CPPC is relatively new, it is
unclear if the ACPI ASL will always be written to reflect any sort
of relative performance of processors of differing speeds.
(3) It assumes that performance and frequency both scale linearly.
For arm64 servers, this may be sufficient, but it does rely on
firmware values being set correctly. Hence, other approaches will
be considered in the future.
This has been tested on three arm64 servers, with and without DMI, with
and without CPPC support.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2016-07-20 15:10:04 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2017-05-11 16:39:44 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-11 16:39:44 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-11 16:39:44 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:21 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:01 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:19 +00:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:19 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:19 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-23 09:54:39 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-23 09:54:39 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:31:27 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2021-06-23 09:54:39 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:42:23 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-18 13:42:23 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-15 09:40:17 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2023-08-15 09:40:17 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:19 +00:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-11 23:07:55 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2022-05-18 11:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-23 09:54:39 +05:30
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: add SW BOOST support
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we need to get the max frequency of
boost mode and non-boost mode. ACPI spec 6.2 section 8.4.7.1 describes
the following two CPC registers.
"Highest performance is the absolute maximum performance an individual
processor may reach, assuming ideal conditions. This performance level
may not be sustainable for long durations, and may only be achievable if
other platform components are in a specific state; for example, it may
require other processors be in an idle state.
Nominal Performance is the maximum sustained performance level of the
processor, assuming ideal operating conditions. In absence of an
external constraint (power, thermal, etc.) this is the performance level
the platform is expected to be able to maintain continuously. All
processors are expected to be able to sustain their nominal performance
state simultaneously."
To add SW BOOST support for CPPC, we can use Highest Performance as the
max performance in boost mode and Nominal Performance as the max
performance in non-boost mode. If the Highest Performance is greater
than the Nominal Performance, we assume SW BOOST is supported.
The current CPPC driver does not support SW BOOST and use 'Highest
Performance' as the max performance the CPU can achieve. 'Nominal
Performance' is used to convert 'performance' to 'frequency'. That
means, if firmware enable boost and provide a value for Highest
Performance which is greater than Nominal Performance, boost feature is
enabled by default.
Because SW BOOST is disabled by default, so, after this patch, boost
feature is disabled by default even if boost is enabled by firmware.
Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-05-30 10:08:31 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-12-14 12:38:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-11-05 12:55:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-12-11 11:48:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-09-12 15:37:22 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 10:38:47 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-08-15 00:35:48 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-17 11:54:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
cpufreq: CPPC: Add per_cpu efficiency_class
In ACPI, describing power efficiency of CPUs can be done through the
following arm specific field:
ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure',
'Processor Power Efficiency Class field':
Describes the relative power efficiency of the associated pro-
cessor. Lower efficiency class numbers are more efficient than
higher ones (e.g. efficiency class 0 should be treated as more
efficient than efficiency class 1). However, absolute values
of this number have no meaning: 2 isn’t necessarily half as
efficient as 1.
The efficiency_class field is stored in the GicC structure of the
ACPI MADT table and it's currently supported in Linux for arm64 only.
Thus, this new functionality is introduced for arm64 only.
To allow the cppc_cpufreq driver to know and preprocess the
efficiency_class values of all the CPUs, add a per_cpu efficiency_class
variable to store them.
At least 2 different efficiency classes must be present,
otherwise there is no use in creating an Energy Model.
The efficiency_class values are squeezed in [0:#efficiency_class-1]
while conserving the order. For instance, efficiency classes of:
[111, 212, 250]
will be mapped to:
[0 (was 111), 1 (was 212), 2 (was 250)].
Each policy being independently registered in the driver, populating
the per_cpu efficiency_class is done only once at the driver
initialization. This prevents from having each policy re-searching the
efficiency_class values of other CPUs. The EM will be registered in a
following patch.
The patch also exports acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc() to fetch the GicC
structure of the ACPI MADT table for each CPU.
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-04-25 14:38:07 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-02-17 11:54:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-05 13:40:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-14 20:45:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-23 15:49:40 +05:30
|
|
|
|
2016-04-14 20:45:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list
The cppc_cpudata per-cpu storage was inefficient (1) additional to causing
functional issues (2) when CPUs are hotplugged out, due to per-cpu data
being improperly initialised.
(1) The amount of information needed for CPPC performance control in its
cpufreq driver depends on the domain (PSD) coordination type:
ANY: One set of CPPC control and capability data (e.g desired
performance, highest/lowest performance, etc) applies to all
CPUs in the domain.
ALL: Same as ANY. To be noted that this type is not currently
supported. When supported, information about which CPUs
belong to a domain is needed in order for frequency change
requests to be sent to each of them.
HW: It's necessary to store CPPC control and capability
information for all the CPUs. HW will then coordinate the
performance state based on their limitations and requests.
NONE: Same as HW. No HW coordination is expected.
Despite this, the previous initialisation code would indiscriminately
allocate memory for all CPUs (all_cpu_data) and unnecessarily
duplicate performance capabilities and the domain sharing mask and type
for each possible CPU.
(2) With the current per-cpu structure, when having ANY coordination,
the cppc_cpudata cpu information is not initialised (will remain 0)
for all CPUs in a policy, other than policy->cpu. When policy->cpu is
hotplugged out, the driver will incorrectly use the uninitialised (0)
value of the other CPUs when making frequency changes. Additionally,
the previous values stored in the perf_ctrls.desired_perf will be
lost when policy->cpu changes.
Therefore replace the array of per cpu data with a list. The memory for
each structure is allocated at policy init, where a single structure
can be allocated per policy, not per cpu. In order to accommodate the
struct list_head node in the cppc_cpudata structure, the now unused cpu
and cur_policy variables are removed.
For example, on a arm64 Juno platform with 6 CPUs: (0, 1, 2, 3) in PSD1,
(4, 5) in PSD2 - ANY coordination, the memory allocation comparison shows:
Before patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
0 0 0 0/1 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7810
0 0 0 0/6 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ff7808
128 80 48 1/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc070
768 0 768 6/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008ffc0e4
After patch:
- ANY coordination:
total slack req alloc/free caller
256 0 256 2/0 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed410
0 0 0 0/2 _kernel_size_le_hi32+0x0xffff800008fed274
Additional notes:
- A pointer to the policy's cppc_cpudata is stored in policy->driver_data
- Driver registration is skipped if _CPC entries are not present.
Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab <ykaukab@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2020-12-14 12:38:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-14 20:45:53 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-02 10:04:01 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-14 12:00:23 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-02 15:34:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2016-10-14 12:00:23 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
