Hi Preeti,
On 05/05/2015 09:30 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Shilpa,
>
> On 05/04/2015 02:24 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
>> Re-evaluate the chip's throttled state on recieving OCC_THROTTLE
>> notification by executing *throttle_check() on any one of the cpu on
>> the chip. This is a sanity check to verify if we were indeed
>> throttled/unthrottled after receiving OCC_THROTTLE notification.
>>
>> We cannot call *throttle_check() directly from the notification
>> handler because we could be handling chip1's notification in chip2. So
>> initiate an smp_call to execute *throttle_check(). We are irq-disabled
>> in the notification handler, so use a worker thread to smp_call
>> throttle_check() on any of the cpu in the chipmask.
>
> I see that the first patch takes care of reporting *per-chip* throttling
> for pmax capping condition. But where are we taking care of reporting
> "pstate set to safe" and "freq control disabled" scenarios per-chip ?
>
IMO let us not have "psafe" and "freq control disabled" states managed per-chip.
Because when the above two conditions occur it is likely to happen across all
chips during an OCC reset cycle. So I am setting 'throttled' to false on
OCC_ACTIVE and re-verifying if it actually is the case by invoking
*throttle_check().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> index 9268424..9618813 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static bool rebooting, throttled, occ_reset;
>> static struct chip {
>> unsigned int id;
>> bool throttled;
>> + cpumask_t mask;
>> + struct work_struct throttle;
>> } *chips;
>>
>> static int nr_chips;
>> @@ -310,8 +312,9 @@ static inline unsigned int get_nominal_index(void)
>> return powernv_pstate_info.max - powernv_pstate_info.nominal;
>> }
>>
>> -static void powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(unsigned int cpu)
>> +static void powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(void *data)
>> {
>> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> unsigned long pmsr;
>> int pmsr_pmax, pmsr_lp, i;
>>
>> @@ -373,7 +376,7 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_target_index(struct
>> cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> return 0;
>>
>> if (!throttled)
>> - powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(smp_processor_id());
>> + powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(NULL);
>>
>> freq_data.pstate_id = powernv_freqs[new_index].driver_data;
>>
>> @@ -418,6 +421,14 @@ static struct notifier_block powernv_cpufreq_reboot_nb
>> = {
>> .notifier_call = powernv_cpufreq_reboot_notifier,
>> };
>>
>> +void powernv_cpufreq_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct chip *chip = container_of(work, struct chip, throttle);
>> +
>> + smp_call_function_any(&chip->mask,
>> + powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check, NULL, 0);
>> +}
>> +
>> static char throttle_reason[][30] = {
>> "No throttling",
>> "Power Cap",
>> @@ -433,6 +444,7 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct notifier_block
>> *nb,
>> struct opal_msg *occ_msg = msg;
>> uint64_t token;
>> uint64_t chip_id, reason;
>> + int i;
>>
>> if (msg_type != OPAL_MSG_OCC)
>> return 0;
>> @@ -466,6 +478,10 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct
>> notifier_block *nb,
>> occ_reset = false;
>> throttled = false;
>> pr_info("OCC: Active\n");
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++)
>> + schedule_work(&chips[i].throttle);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -476,6 +492,12 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct
>> notifier_block *nb,
>> else if (!reason)
>> pr_info("OCC: Chip %u %s\n", (unsigned int)chip_id,
>> throttle_reason[reason]);
>> + else
>> + return 0;
>
> Why the else section ? The code can never reach here, can it ?
When reason > 5 , we dont want to handle it.
>
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++)
>> + if (chips[i].id == chip_id)
>> + schedule_work(&chips[i].throttle);
>> }
>
> Should we not do this only when we get unthrottled so as to cross verify
> if it is indeed the case ? In case of throttling notification, opal's
> verdict is final and there is no need to cross verify right ?
Two reasons for invoking *throttle_check() on throttling:
1) We just got to know the reason and not the Pmax value we are getting
throttled to.
2) It could be a spurious message caused due to late/lost delivery. My point
here is let us not completely rely on the notification to declare throttling
unless we verify it from reading PMSR.
>
> Perhaps the one thing that needs to be taken care in addition to
> reporting throttling is setting the chip's throttled parameter to true.
> This should do right ? I don't see the need to call throttle_check() here.
>
>
Thanks and Regards,
Shilpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
