From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, sumitg@nvidia.com,
yang@os.amperecomputing.com, lihuisong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] cpufreq: Use arch specific feedback for cpuinfo_cur_freq
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 12:02:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zjn8RGSDfn3HrYYd@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zjnm7LzrYLCbz-XX@arm.com>
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 10:31:52AM +0200, Beata Michalska wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:55:15PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 26-04-24, 12:45, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > > It seems that we might need to revisit the discussion we've had around
> > > scaling_cur_freq and cpuinfo_cur_freq and the use of arch_freq_get_on_cpu.
> > > As Vanshi has raised, having both utilizing arch specific feedback for
> > > getting current frequency is bit problematic and might be confusing at best.
> > > As arch_freq_get_on_cpu is already used by show_scaling_cur_freq there are not
> > > many options we are left with, if we want to kee all archs aligned:
> > > we can either try to rework show_scaling_cur_freq and it's use of
> > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu, and move it to cpuinfo_cur_freq, which would align with
> > > relevant docs, though that will not work for x86, or we keep it only there and
> > > skip updating cpuinfo_cur_freq, going against the guidelines. Other options,
> > > purely theoretical, would involve making arch_freq_get_on_cpu aware of type of
> > > the info requested (hw vs sw) or adding yet another arch-specific implementation,
> > > and those are not really appealing alternatives to say at least.
> > > What's your opinion on this one ?
> >
> > Hi Beata / Vanshidhar,
> >
> > Lets forget for once what X86 and ARM may have done and think about it
> > once again. I also had a chat with Vincent today about this.
> >
> > The documentation says it clearly, cpuinfo_cur_freq is the one
> > received from hardware and scaling_cur_freq is the one requested from
> > software.
> >
> > Now, I know that X86 has made both of them quite similar and I
> > suggested to make them all aligned (and never received a reply on my
> > previous message).
> >
> > There are few reasons why it may be worth keeping the definition (and
> > behavior) of the sysfs files as is, at least for ARM:
> > - First is that the documentation says so.
> > - There is no point providing the same information via both the
> > interfaces, there are two interfaces here for a reason.
> > - There maybe tools around which depend on the documented behavior.
> > - From userspace, currently there is only one way to know the exact
> > frequency that the cpufreq governors have requested from a platform,
> > i.e. the value from scaling_cur_freq. If we make it similar to
> > cpuinfo_cur_freq, then userspace will never know about the requested
> > frequency and the eventual one and if they are same or different.
> >
> > Lets keep the behavior as is and update only cpuinfo_cur_freq with
> > arch_freq_get_on_cpu().
> >
> > Makes sense ?
> >
> First of all - apologies for late reply.
>
> It all makes sense, though to clarify things up, for my own benefit, and to
> avoid any potential confusion ....
>
> Adding arch_freq_get_on_cpu to cpuinfo_cur_freq does seem to be the right
> approach - no argue on this one. Doing that though means we need a way to
> skip calling arch_freq_get_on_cpu() from show_scaling_cur_freq(), to avoid
> having both providing the same information when that should not be the case.
> In the initial approach [1], that was handled by checking whether the cpufreq
> driver supports 'get' callback (and thus cpuinfo_cur_freq). In case it didn't,
> things remained unchanged for scaling_cur_freq. That does not seem to be a viable
> option though, as there are at least few drivers, that will support both:
> cpuinfo_cur_freq alongside scaling_cur_freq (+ APERF/MPERF) and for those,
> we would hit the initial problem of both relying on arch_freq_get_on_cpu.
> So I guess we need another way of avoiding calling arch_freq_get_on_cpu
> for show_scaling_cur_freq (and most probably avoid calling that one for
> cpuinfo_cur_freq). Quick idea on how to not bring arch specificity into
> cpufreq generic code would be to introduce a new flag for cpufreq drivers though
> that seems a bit stretched. Will ponder a bit about that but in the meantime
> suggestions are more than welcomed.
Alternatively we could add a parameter to arch_freq_get_on_cpu specifying type
of feedback required: hw vs sw. Then the arch specific implementation could
decide which to provide when. It will get slightly counter-intuitive, especially
for cases when sw feedback provides hw one, as it is the case for current
arch_freq_get_on_cpu() and scaling_cur_freq but at least the changes would be
minimal and it will contain handling the tricky bits inside arch specific
implementation - hiding those messy bits.
---
BR
Beata
>
> Aside: I will most probably send the changes separately from this series to not
> mix things any further.
>
> ---
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230606155754.245998-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/
> ---
> BR
> Beata
>
>
> > --
> > viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-07 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-05 13:33 [PATCH v4 0/4] Add support for AArch64 AMUv1-based arch_freq_get_on_cpu Beata Michalska
2024-04-05 13:33 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] arch_topology: init capacity_freq_ref to 0 Beata Michalska
2024-04-08 8:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-04-05 13:33 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Provide an AMU-based version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu Beata Michalska
2024-04-05 13:33 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] arm64: Update AMU-based frequency scale factor on entering idle Beata Michalska
2024-04-10 18:57 ` Sumit Gupta
2024-04-11 19:30 ` Beata Michalska
2024-04-05 13:33 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] cpufreq: Use arch specific feedback for cpuinfo_cur_freq Beata Michalska
2024-04-16 4:23 ` Vanshidhar Konda
2024-04-16 15:46 ` Beata Michalska
2024-04-17 21:38 ` Vanshidhar Konda
2024-04-26 10:45 ` Beata Michalska
2024-04-29 9:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2024-05-01 14:46 ` Vanshidhar Konda
2024-05-07 8:31 ` Beata Michalska
2024-05-07 10:02 ` Beata Michalska [this message]
2024-05-20 9:18 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zjn8RGSDfn3HrYYd@arm.com \
--to=beata.michalska@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=sumitg@nvidia.com \
--cc=vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).