Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 19-10-20, 14:36, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
>
> On 10/19/20 10:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-10-20, 09:50, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >> Hi Viresh,
> >>
> >> thank you for your suggestion on using 'opp-shared'.
> >> I think it could work for most of the cases we explained earlier.
> >>
> >> Summarising, there are two parts of this entire proposal:
> >> 1) where/how to get the information: now we are focusing on taking
> >> advantage of
> >> 'opp-shared' within an empty opp table
> >> 2) and how/where this information will be consumed
> >>
> >> Further details below:
> >>
> >> 1) a CPUFreq driver that takes the OPPs from firmware, can call
> >> dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus like you suggested. When doing so, a
> >> provided
> >> cpumaksk will be populated with the corresponding cpus that share the same
> >> (empty) table opp in DT.
> >> All good so far.
> >
> > Great.
> >
> >> The current opp core is not expecting an empty table and therefore some
> >> errors
> >> are thrown when this happens.
> >> Since we are now allowing this corner-case, I am presenting below where I
> >> think
> >> some minor corrections may be needed:
> >>
> >> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
> >> @@ static void _opp_table_alloc_required_tables(struct opp_table
> >> *opp_table,
> >> struct device_node *required_np, *np;
> >> int count, i;
> >>
> >> /* Traversing the first OPP node is all we need */
> >> np = of_get_next_available_child(opp_np, NULL);
> >> if (!np) {
> >> - dev_err(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
> >> + dev_warn(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> +* With empty table we remove shared_opp. This is to leave
> >> the
> >> +* responsibility to decide which opp are shared to the
> >> opp users
> >> +*/
> >> + opp_table->shared_opp = OPP_TABLE_ACCESS_EXCLUSIVE;
> >> +
> >> return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ int dev_pm_opp_of_find_icc_paths(struct device *dev,
> >> int ret, i, count, num_paths;
> >> struct icc_path **paths;
> >>
> >> ret = _bandwidth_supported(dev, opp_table);
> >> - if (ret <= 0)
> >> + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> >> + return 0; /* Empty OPP table is a valid corner-case, let's
> >> not
> >> fail */
> >> + else if (ret <= 0)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> The above are not 'strictly' necessary to achieve the intended goal, but
> >> they
> >> make clearer that an empty table is now allowed and not an error anymore.
> >> What it is your point of view on this?
> >
> > Why is this stuff getting called in your case ? We shouldn't be trying
> > to create an OPP table here and it should still be an error in the
> > code if we are asked to parse an empty OPP table.
>
> A driver that gets a set of opp-points from f/w needs to add them to each
> device. To do so, it will call dev_pm_opp_add(). If an opp_table struct for
> this
> device is not found, one will be created and the opp-point will be added to
> it.
> When allocation a new opp_table the opp will try to initialise it by parsing
> the
> values in DT. It will also try to find_icc_paths.
>
> Everything happens silently if we don't have a table in DT.
Right, you need something like your patch here.
--
viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh,
On 10/19/20 10:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-10-20, 09:50, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
>> Hi Viresh,
>>
>> thank you for your suggestion on using 'opp-shared'.
>> I think it could work for most of the cases we explained earlier.
>>
>> Summarising, there are two parts of this entire proposal:
>> 1) where/how to get the information: now we are focusing on taking advantage
>> of
>> 'opp-shared' within an empty opp table
>> 2) and how/where this information will be consumed
>>
>> Further details below:
>>
>> 1) a CPUFreq driver that takes the OPPs from firmware, can call
>> dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus like you suggested. When doing so, a provided
>> cpumaksk will be populated with the corresponding cpus that share the same
>> (empty) table opp in DT.
>> All good so far.
>
> Great.
>
>> The current opp core is not expecting an empty table and therefore some
>> errors
>> are thrown when this happens.
>> Since we are now allowing this corner-case, I am presenting below where I
>> think
>> some minor corrections may be needed:
>>
>> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
>> +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
>> @@ static void _opp_table_alloc_required_tables(struct opp_table *opp_table,
>> struct device_node *required_np, *np;
>> int count, i;
>>
>> /* Traversing the first OPP node is all we need */
>> np = of_get_next_available_child(opp_np, NULL);
>> if (!np) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
>> + dev_warn(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
>> +
>> + /*
>> +* With empty table we remove shared_opp. This is to leave
>> the
>> +* responsibility to decide which opp are shared to the opp
>> users
>> +*/
>> + opp_table->shared_opp = OPP_TABLE_ACCESS_EXCLUSIVE;
>> +
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> @@ int dev_pm_opp_of_find_icc_paths(struct device *dev,
>> int ret, i, count, num_paths;
>> struct icc_path **paths;
>>
>> ret = _bandwidth_supported(dev, opp_table);
>> - if (ret <= 0)
>> + if (ret == -EINVAL)
>> + return 0; /* Empty OPP table is a valid corner-case, let's
>> not
>> fail */
>> + else if (ret <= 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> The above are not 'strictly' necessary to achieve the intended goal, but they
>> make clearer that an empty table is now allowed and not an error anymore.
>> What it is your point of view on this?
>
> Why is this stuff getting called in your case ? We shouldn't be trying
> to create an OPP table here and it should still be an error in the
> code if we are asked to parse an empty OPP table.
A driver that gets a set of opp-points from f/w needs to add them to each
device. To do so, it will call dev_pm_opp_add(). If an opp_table struct for this
device is not found, one will be created and the opp-point will be added to it.
When allocation a new opp_table the opp will try to initialise it by parsing the
values in DT. It will also try to find_icc_paths.
Everything happens silently if we don't have a table in DT.
>
>> In addition, I think it would also be appropriate to update the documentation
>> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt) to reflect this new case
>> (required properties etc).
>> Any different thoughts?
>
> Yes, this needs a small update in the required-opps section.
Cool, I'll sketch something in the next version.
>
>> 2) Once the driver gets the 'performance dependencies' by
>> dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(), this information will have to be shared
>> with
>> EAS, thermal, etc.. The natural way to do so would be to add a new cpumask
>> like
>> I proposed in this RFC.
>> I see this as an improvement for the whole subsystem and a scalable choice
>> since
>> we can unambiguously provide the correct information to whoever needs it,
>> given
>> that we don't enforce "hw dependencies" for related_cpus.
>> The changes would be trivial (it's in the original RFC).
>> On the other hand, we can't unload this h/w detail into related_cpus IMO as
>> we
>> are dealing with per-cpu systems in this context.
>> Hope it makes sense?
>
> I will have another look at this stuff, honestly I haven't looked at
> this in detail yet. But I do understand that we can't really use
> related-cpu here without changing its earlier meaning.
Sure. thanks
>
Hope it helps
Best regards
Nicola
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 19-10-20, 09:50, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> thank you for your suggestion on using 'opp-shared'.
> I think it could work for most of the cases we explained earlier.
>
> Summarising, there are two parts of this entire proposal:
> 1) where/how to get the information: now we are focusing on taking advantage
> of
> 'opp-shared' within an empty opp table
> 2) and how/where this information will be consumed
>
> Further details below:
>
> 1) a CPUFreq driver that takes the OPPs from firmware, can call
> dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus like you suggested. When doing so, a provided
> cpumaksk will be populated with the corresponding cpus that share the same
> (empty) table opp in DT.
> All good so far.
Great.
> The current opp core is not expecting an empty table and therefore some errors
> are thrown when this happens.
> Since we are now allowing this corner-case, I am presenting below where I
> think
> some minor corrections may be needed:
>
> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
> +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
> @@ static void _opp_table_alloc_required_tables(struct opp_table *opp_table,
> struct device_node *required_np, *np;
> int count, i;
>
> /* Traversing the first OPP node is all we need */
> np = of_get_next_available_child(opp_np, NULL);
> if (!np) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
> + dev_warn(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
> +
> + /*
> +* With empty table we remove shared_opp. This is to leave the
> +* responsibility to decide which opp are shared to the opp
> users
> +*/
> + opp_table->shared_opp = OPP_TABLE_ACCESS_EXCLUSIVE;
> +
> return;
> }
>
> @@ int dev_pm_opp_of_find_icc_paths(struct device *dev,
> int ret, i, count, num_paths;
> struct icc_path **paths;
>
> ret = _bandwidth_supported(dev, opp_table);
> - if (ret <= 0)
> + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> + return 0; /* Empty OPP table is a valid corner-case, let's not
> fail */
> + else if (ret <= 0)
> return ret;
>
> The above are not 'strictly' necessary to achieve the intended goal, but they
> make clearer that an empty table is now allowed and not an error anymore.
> What it is your point of view on this?
Why is this stuff getting called in your case ? We shouldn't be trying
to create an OPP table here and it should still be an error in the
code if we are asked to parse an empty OPP table.
> In addition, I think it would also be appropriate to update the documentation
> (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt) to reflect this new case
> (required properties etc).
> Any different thoughts?
Yes, this needs a small update in the required-opps section.
> 2) Once the driver gets the 'performance dependencies' by
> dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(), this information will have to be shared with
> EAS, thermal, etc.. The natural way to do so would be to add a new cpumask
> like
> I proposed in this RFC.
> I see this as an improvement for the whole subsystem and a scalable choice
> since
> we can unambiguously provide the correct information to whoever needs it,
> given
> that we don't enforce "hw dependencies" for related_cpus.
> The changes would be trivial (it's in the original RFC).
> On the other hand, we can't unload this h/w detail into related_cpus IMO as we
> are dealing with per-cpu systems in this context.
> Hope it makes sense?
I will have another look at this stuff, honestly I haven't looked at
this in detail yet. But I do understand that we can't really use
related-cpu here without changing its earlier meaning.
--
viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh,
thank you for your suggestion on using 'opp-shared'.
I think it could work for most of the cases we explained earlier.
Summarising, there are two parts of this entire proposal:
1) where/how to get the information: now we are focusing on taking advantage of
'opp-shared' within an empty opp table
2) and how/where this information will be consumed
Further details below:
1) a CPUFreq driver that takes the OPPs from firmware, can call
dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus like you suggested. When doing so, a provided
cpumaksk will be populated with the corresponding cpus that share the same
(empty) table opp in DT.
All good so far.
The current opp core is not expecting an empty table and therefore some errors
are thrown when this happens.
Since we are now allowing this corner-case, I am presenting below where I think
some minor corrections may be needed:
--- a/drivers/opp/of.c
+++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
@@ static void _opp_table_alloc_required_tables(struct opp_table *opp_table,
struct device_node *required_np, *np;
int count, i;
/* Traversing the first OPP node is all we need */
np = of_get_next_available_child(opp_np, NULL);
if (!np) {
- dev_err(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
+ dev_warn(dev, "Empty OPP table\n");
+
+ /*
+* With empty table we remove shared_opp. This is to leave the
+* responsibility to decide which opp are shared to the opp
users
+*/
+ opp_table->shared_opp = OPP_TABLE_ACCESS_EXCLUSIVE;
+
return;
}
@@ int dev_pm_opp_of_find_icc_paths(struct device *dev,
int ret, i, count, num_paths;
struct icc_path **paths;
ret = _bandwidth_supported(dev, opp_table);
- if (ret <= 0)
+ if (ret == -EINVAL)
+ return 0; /* Empty OPP table is a valid corner-case, let's not
fail */
+ else if (ret <= 0)
return ret;
The above are not 'strictly' necessary to achieve the intended goal, but they
make clearer that an empty table is now allowed and not an error anymore.
What it is your point of view on this?
In addition, I think it would also be appropriate to update the documentation
(Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt) to reflect this new case
(required properties etc).
Any different thoughts?
2) Once the driver gets the 'performance dependencies' by
dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(), this information will have to be shared with
EAS, thermal, etc.. The natural way to do so would be to add a new cpumask like
I proposed in this RFC.
I see this as an improvement for the whole subsystem and a scalable choice since
we can unambiguously provide the correct information to whoever needs it, given
that we don't enforce "hw dependencies" for related_cpus.
The changes would be trivial (it's in the original RFC).
On the other hand, we can't unload this h/w detail into related_cpus IMO as we
are dealing with per-cpu systems in this context.
Hope it makes sense?
Once we are pretty much aligned with our ideas, I can run some other tests and
make a V3.
Thank you very much,
Best regards
Nicola
On 10/14/20 5:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-10-20, 18:18, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> On 10/12/20 5:52 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
>>> On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> - I wonder if we can keep using that instead of creating new bindings
>for exact same stuff ? Though the difference here would be that the
>OPP may not have any other entries.
Well summarised, sorry for chiming in late. I could have not summarised
any better. Just saw the big thread and was thinking of summarising.
If the last point on OPP is possible(i.e. no OPP entries but just use
it for fetch the information) for $subject patch is trying to achieve,
then it would be good.
>
> Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have suggested empty opp-tables
> for sure but it doesn't seem worth adding another binding to get this
> information out :)
>
>>>
>>> Just to put in my two pennies worth: using opp-shared (in possibly empty
>>> OPP table) as alternative to cpu-perf-dependencies sounds good enough
>>> to me as well.
>>
>> +1
>
> Now that (almost) everyone agrees, I don't think we need to make any
> change anywhere, in code or bindings. This should work right now as
> well. The code should never try to create OPP tables and the core
> will not create one. Your driver (which want to get this information
> out of empty OPP tables) shall call dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(),
> which just parses the DT to get this information out.
>
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Rafael, Sorry in advance for the long writing. I hope it makes sense. On Thursday 15 Oct 2020 at 17:56:56 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM Ionela Voinescu > wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > On Tuesday 13 Oct 2020 at 13:53:37 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:01 AM Ionela Voinescu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Lukasz, > > > > > > > > I think after all this discussion (in our own way of describing things) > > > > we agree on how the current cpufreq based FIE implementation is affected > > > > in systems that use hardware coordination. > > > > > > > > What we don't agree on is the location where that implementation (that > > > > uses the new mask and aggregation) should be. > > > > > > > > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19:29 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > The previous FIE implementation where arch_set_freq_scale() > > > > > was called from the drivers, was better suited for this issue. > > > > > Driver could just use internal dependency cpumask or even > > > > > do the aggregation to figure out the max freq for cluster > > > > > if there is a need, before calling arch_set_freq_scale(). > > > > > > > > > > It is not perfect solution for software FIE, but one of possible > > > > > when there is no hw counters. > > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > Difference between new FIE and old FIE (from v5.8) is that the new one > > > > > purely relies on schedutil max freq value (which will now be missing), > > > > > while the old FIE was called by the driver and thus it was an option > > > > > to > > > > > fix only the affected cpufreq driver [1][2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My final argument is that now you have 2 drivers that would need this > > > > support, next you'll have 3 (the new mediatek driver), and in the future > > > > there will be more. So why limit and duplicate this functionality in the > > > > drivers? Why not make it generic for all drivers to use if the system > > > > is using hardware coordination? > > > > > > > > Additionally, I don't think drivers should not even need to know about > > > > these dependency/clock domains. They should act at the level of the > > > > policy, which in this case will be at the level of each CPU. > > > > > > The policies come from the driver, though. > > > > > > The driver decides how many CPUs will be there in a policy and how to > > > handle them at the initialization time. > > > > Yes, policies are built based on information populated from the drivers > > at .init(): what CPUs will belong to a policy, what methods to use for > > setting and getting frequency, etc. > > > > So they do pass this information to the cpufreq core to be stored at the > > level of the policy, but later drivers (in the majority of cases) will > > not need to store on their own information on what CPUs belong to a > > frequency domain, they rely on having passed that information to the > > core, and the core mechanisms hold this information on the clock domains > > (currently through policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus). > > Strictly speaking, not quite. > > In fact policy->related_cpus is a set of CPUs that share a common perf > control HW/FW interface which may or may not match the boundaries of > clock domains etc. That's what the entire cpufreq needs to know and > cares about. > Yes, generally speaking, you are absolutely correct, and actually this is the motivation behind these patches: policy->related_cpus shows cpus sharing the same perf controls, but we need "something else" to show us the cpus sharing the same clocks. It was my mistake for describing policy->related_cpus in the way I have above, but my "excuse" is that I was referring to arm/arm64 platforms, in the context of this cpufreq driver FIE, which is only present on arm/arm64 platforms. I'll expand on this below. Speaking practically, again referring to arm/arm64 platforms, for most* of them, policy->related_cpus does also identify CPUs in the same clock domain and therefore is used as if that was true. The obvious examples are exactly the users that were presented as part of the motivation of these patches: EAS, IPA, cpufreq-based FIE. They treat policy->related_cpus as dependent cpus (cpus that change they performance together or are clocked together). *one of the exceptions is that old BL_SWITCHER support. Another example of how the two (perf controls vs clock domains) are not quite as separate in practice, is the cppc_cpufreq driver: that driver reads the PSD domains and creates the policies based on the domains, not based on the CPPC controls. It does mention only support for SW_ANY, but that does not change the fact that the PSD (p-state dependency) is used to populate policy->related_cpus and not any sharing of controls from _CPC. Also, generically, policy->cpus (in schedutil or the ondemand governor) is used as the basis for software coordination. I suppose software coordination only has meaning at the leve
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Tuesday 13 Oct 2020 at 13:53:37 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:01 AM Ionela Voinescu > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey Lukasz, > > > > > > I think after all this discussion (in our own way of describing things) > > > we agree on how the current cpufreq based FIE implementation is affected > > > in systems that use hardware coordination. > > > > > > What we don't agree on is the location where that implementation (that > > > uses the new mask and aggregation) should be. > > > > > > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19:29 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > [..] > > > > The previous FIE implementation where arch_set_freq_scale() > > > > was called from the drivers, was better suited for this issue. > > > > Driver could just use internal dependency cpumask or even > > > > do the aggregation to figure out the max freq for cluster > > > > if there is a need, before calling arch_set_freq_scale(). > > > > > > > > It is not perfect solution for software FIE, but one of possible > > > > when there is no hw counters. > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Difference between new FIE and old FIE (from v5.8) is that the new one > > > > purely relies on schedutil max freq value (which will now be missing), > > > > while the old FIE was called by the driver and thus it was an option to > > > > fix only the affected cpufreq driver [1][2]. > > > > > > > > > > My final argument is that now you have 2 drivers that would need this > > > support, next you'll have 3 (the new mediatek driver), and in the future > > > there will be more. So why limit and duplicate this functionality in the > > > drivers? Why not make it generic for all drivers to use if the system > > > is using hardware coordination? > > > > > > Additionally, I don't think drivers should not even need to know about > > > these dependency/clock domains. They should act at the level of the > > > policy, which in this case will be at the level of each CPU. > > > > The policies come from the driver, though. > > > > The driver decides how many CPUs will be there in a policy and how to > > handle them at the initialization time. > > Yes, policies are built based on information populated from the drivers > at .init(): what CPUs will belong to a policy, what methods to use for > setting and getting frequency, etc. > > So they do pass this information to the cpufreq core to be stored at the > level of the policy, but later drivers (in the majority of cases) will > not need to store on their own information on what CPUs belong to a > frequency domain, they rely on having passed that information to the > core, and the core mechanisms hold this information on the clock domains > (currently through policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus). Strictly speaking, not quite. In fact policy->related_cpus is a set of CPUs that share a common perf control HW/FW interface which may or may not match the boundaries of clock domains etc. That's what the entire cpufreq needs to know and cares about. AFAICS your scale invariance rework patches were based on the assumption that CPUs sharing an interface like that should also belong to the same frequency domain, which is reasonable and that's why I didn't have a problem with it, but if you were really assuming that policy->related_cpus must always reflect a frequency domain, then I'm afraid that you were not going in the right direction (the one-CPU-per-policy with HW coordination example should be sufficient to illustrate that). It is correct that drivers generally don't need to know about the HW clock (or voltage for that matter) coordination dependencies, but the rest of cpufreq doesn't need to know about them either. If that information is needed for something else, I don't see a reason to put it into cpufreq.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 13-10-20, 14:53, Lukasz Luba wrote: > I've started wondering based on the OPP code if this is a good solution. > We would end up with one (?) instance of opp_table and list of devices > pinned to it, in: opp_table->dev_list > It can be seen e.g. in function dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(), > where we retrieve the cpumask simply looping through the devices: > > list_for_each_entry(opp_dev, &opp_table->dev_list, node) > cpumask_set_cpu(opp_dev->dev->id, cpumask); > > > This means we have a single OPP table for all pinned CPUs. > I wonder if this is not too strong assumption for still being compliant > with SCMI spec, when in theory performance levels might differ... > (please correct me here it that would never happen) > > There is also 2nd function dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus() which looks > more promising. But I still don't know if the framework will allow us > to have private OPP tables when we use 'shared' in DT. > > Could you clarify if we would get 'private' opp table for each CPU, > which could be then populated independently, but still 2nd function will > work? I think there is some misunderstanding here in your part. The opp-table in the code is shared between CPUs only when the "opp-shared" property is present in the OPP table. If that property isn't available, even if same DT opp-table is pointed at by all the CPUs, the code will have separate copies of the OPP table. Though in your case (with performance-levels) it shouldn't matter as code will never create an OPP table I suppose. -- viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 10/14/20 5:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 12-10-20, 18:18, Lukasz Luba wrote: On 10/12/20 5:52 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: - I wonder if we can keep using that instead of creating new bindings for exact same stuff ? Though the difference here would be that the OPP may not have any other entries. Well summarised, sorry for chiming in late. I could have not summarised any better. Just saw the big thread and was thinking of summarising. If the last point on OPP is possible(i.e. no OPP entries but just use it for fetch the information) for $subject patch is trying to achieve, then it would be good. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have suggested empty opp-tables for sure but it doesn't seem worth adding another binding to get this information out :) Just to put in my two pennies worth: using opp-shared (in possibly empty OPP table) as alternative to cpu-perf-dependencies sounds good enough to me as well. +1 Now that (almost) everyone agrees, I don't think we need to make any change anywhere, in code or bindings. This should work right now as well. The code should never try to create OPP tables and the core will not create one. Your driver (which want to get this information out of empty OPP tables) shall call dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(), which just parses the DT to get this information out. Thank you Viresh. We are going to experiment with this and come back soon. Regards, Lukasz
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 12-10-20, 18:18, Lukasz Luba wrote: > On 10/12/20 5:52 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > - I wonder if we can keep using that instead of creating new bindings > > > >for exact same stuff ? Though the difference here would be that the > > > >OPP may not have any other entries. > > > > > > Well summarised, sorry for chiming in late. I could have not summarised > > > any better. Just saw the big thread and was thinking of summarising. > > > If the last point on OPP is possible(i.e. no OPP entries but just use > > > it for fetch the information) for $subject patch is trying to achieve, > > > then it would be good. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have suggested empty opp-tables for sure but it doesn't seem worth adding another binding to get this information out :) > > > > Just to put in my two pennies worth: using opp-shared (in possibly empty > > OPP table) as alternative to cpu-perf-dependencies sounds good enough > > to me as well. > > +1 Now that (almost) everyone agrees, I don't think we need to make any change anywhere, in code or bindings. This should work right now as well. The code should never try to create OPP tables and the core will not create one. Your driver (which want to get this information out of empty OPP tables) shall call dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus(), which just parses the DT to get this information out. -- viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh, On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: Oh yes, I get it now. Finally. Thanks for helping me out :) So if I can say all this stuff in simple terms, this is what it will be like: - We don't want software aggregation of frequencies and so we need to have per-cpu policies even when they share their clock lines. - But we still need a way for other frameworks to know which CPUs share the clock lines (that's what the perf-dependency is all about, right ?). - We can't get it from SCMI, but need a DT based solution. - Currently for the cpufreq-case we relied for this on the way OPP tables for the CPUs were described. i.e. the opp-table is marked as "shared" and multiple CPUs point to it. I've started wondering based on the OPP code if this is a good solution. We would end up with one (?) instance of opp_table and list of devices pinned to it, in: opp_table->dev_list It can be seen e.g. in function dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(), where we retrieve the cpumask simply looping through the devices: list_for_each_entry(opp_dev, &opp_table->dev_list, node) cpumask_set_cpu(opp_dev->dev->id, cpumask); This means we have a single OPP table for all pinned CPUs. I wonder if this is not too strong assumption for still being compliant with SCMI spec, when in theory performance levels might differ... (please correct me here it that would never happen) There is also 2nd function dev_pm_opp_of_get_sharing_cpus() which looks more promising. But I still don't know if the framework will allow us to have private OPP tables when we use 'shared' in DT. Could you clarify if we would get 'private' opp table for each CPU, which could be then populated independently, but still 2nd function will work? Regards, Lukasz
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Rafael, On Tuesday 13 Oct 2020 at 13:53:37 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:01 AM Ionela Voinescu > wrote: > > > > Hey Lukasz, > > > > I think after all this discussion (in our own way of describing things) > > we agree on how the current cpufreq based FIE implementation is affected > > in systems that use hardware coordination. > > > > What we don't agree on is the location where that implementation (that > > uses the new mask and aggregation) should be. > > > > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19:29 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > > [..] > > > The previous FIE implementation where arch_set_freq_scale() > > > was called from the drivers, was better suited for this issue. > > > Driver could just use internal dependency cpumask or even > > > do the aggregation to figure out the max freq for cluster > > > if there is a need, before calling arch_set_freq_scale(). > > > > > > It is not perfect solution for software FIE, but one of possible > > > when there is no hw counters. > > > > > [..] > > > > > Difference between new FIE and old FIE (from v5.8) is that the new one > > > purely relies on schedutil max freq value (which will now be missing), > > > while the old FIE was called by the driver and thus it was an option to > > > fix only the affected cpufreq driver [1][2]. > > > > > > > My final argument is that now you have 2 drivers that would need this > > support, next you'll have 3 (the new mediatek driver), and in the future > > there will be more. So why limit and duplicate this functionality in the > > drivers? Why not make it generic for all drivers to use if the system > > is using hardware coordination? > > > > Additionally, I don't think drivers should not even need to know about > > these dependency/clock domains. They should act at the level of the > > policy, which in this case will be at the level of each CPU. > > The policies come from the driver, though. > > The driver decides how many CPUs will be there in a policy and how to > handle them at the initialization time. Yes, policies are built based on information populated from the drivers at .init(): what CPUs will belong to a policy, what methods to use for setting and getting frequency, etc. So they do pass this information to the cpufreq core to be stored at the level of the policy, but later drivers (in the majority of cases) will not need to store on their own information on what CPUs belong to a frequency domain, they rely on having passed that information to the core, and the core mechanisms hold this information on the clock domains (currently through policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus). > > The core has no idea whether or not there is HW coordination in the > system, the driver is expected to know that and take that into > account. > Given that multiple drivers could use hardware coordination, and drivers already have a way to pass information about the type of coordination to the core through policy->shared_type, could there be a case for supporting this in the core, rather than the drivers? In my head I'm finding this option better compared to having a select set of drivers that would instruct the core to build the policies per-cpu, while holding in the driver information about what CPUs actually belong to clock domains. Additionally, the cpufreq core will have to be able to present to other frameworks (scheduler, thermal) this mask when requested, through a cpufreq interface function. So in the end we'll still potentially end up passing on this information from the driver to the core and then to the user. > Accordingly, it looks like there should be an option for drivers to > arrange things in the most convenient way (from their perspective) and > that option has gone away now. IMO, even if this hardware coordination support is entirely managed by the driver, one requirement is that other subsystems would be able to acquire information about dependent cpus. The scheduler FIE should just be another one of those users, with the decision on how that information is handled residing in architecture code (arch_set_freq_scale()). Architecture code might decide to have a default way of handling these cases or not to support them at all. Thank you, Ionela.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:01 AM Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hey Lukasz, > > I think after all this discussion (in our own way of describing things) > we agree on how the current cpufreq based FIE implementation is affected > in systems that use hardware coordination. > > What we don't agree on is the location where that implementation (that > uses the new mask and aggregation) should be. > > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19:29 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: > [..] > > The previous FIE implementation where arch_set_freq_scale() > > was called from the drivers, was better suited for this issue. > > Driver could just use internal dependency cpumask or even > > do the aggregation to figure out the max freq for cluster > > if there is a need, before calling arch_set_freq_scale(). > > > > It is not perfect solution for software FIE, but one of possible > > when there is no hw counters. > > > [..] > > > Difference between new FIE and old FIE (from v5.8) is that the new one > > purely relies on schedutil max freq value (which will now be missing), > > while the old FIE was called by the driver and thus it was an option to > > fix only the affected cpufreq driver [1][2]. > > > > My final argument is that now you have 2 drivers that would need this > support, next you'll have 3 (the new mediatek driver), and in the future > there will be more. So why limit and duplicate this functionality in the > drivers? Why not make it generic for all drivers to use if the system > is using hardware coordination? > > Additionally, I don't think drivers should not even need to know about > these dependency/clock domains. They should act at the level of the > policy, which in this case will be at the level of each CPU. The policies come from the driver, though. The driver decides how many CPUs will be there in a policy and how to handle them at the initialization time. The core has no idea whether or not there is HW coordination in the system, the driver is expected to know that and take that into account. Accordingly, it looks like there should be an option for drivers to arrange things in the most convenient way (from their perspective) and that option has gone away now.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hey Lukasz, I think after all this discussion (in our own way of describing things) we agree on how the current cpufreq based FIE implementation is affected in systems that use hardware coordination. What we don't agree on is the location where that implementation (that uses the new mask and aggregation) should be. On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 19:19:29 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: [..] > The previous FIE implementation where arch_set_freq_scale() > was called from the drivers, was better suited for this issue. > Driver could just use internal dependency cpumask or even > do the aggregation to figure out the max freq for cluster > if there is a need, before calling arch_set_freq_scale(). > > It is not perfect solution for software FIE, but one of possible > when there is no hw counters. > [..] > Difference between new FIE and old FIE (from v5.8) is that the new one > purely relies on schedutil max freq value (which will now be missing), > while the old FIE was called by the driver and thus it was an option to > fix only the affected cpufreq driver [1][2]. > My final argument is that now you have 2 drivers that would need this support, next you'll have 3 (the new mediatek driver), and in the future there will be more. So why limit and duplicate this functionality in the drivers? Why not make it generic for all drivers to use if the system is using hardware coordination? Additionally, I don't think drivers should not even need to know about these dependency/clock domains. They should act at the level of the policy, which in this case will be at the level of each CPU. Thanks, Ionela. > IMO we can avoid this new cpumask in policy. > > Regards, > Lukasz > > [1] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.8/source/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c#L58 > [2] > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.8/source/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c#L79 >
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 10/12/20 5:30 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
Hi Lukasz,
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 14:48:20 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 10/12/20 11:59 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 11:22:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
[..]
I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can reuse
existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal. The reason
being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not necessarily mean
that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same
capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op points).
Unless I am missing something?
When comparing with ACPI/_PSD it becomes more intuitive that there is no
equivalent way to reveal "perf-dependencies" in DT.
You should be able to by examining the clock tree. But perhaps SCMI
abstracts all that and just presents virtual clocks without parent
clocks available to determine what clocks are shared? Fix SCMI if that's
the case.
True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
(from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
Something like:
firmware {
scmi {
...
scmi-perf-dep {
compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
cpu-perf-dep0 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
};
cpu-perf-dep1 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
};
cpu-perf-dep2 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
};
};
};
};
The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
While SCMI cpufreq would be able to benefit from the functionality that
Nicola is trying to introduce, it's not the only driver, and more
importantly, it's not *going* to be the only driver benefiting from
this.
Currently there is also qcom-cpufreq-hw.c and the future
mediatek-cpufreq-hw.c that is currently under review [1]. They both do
their frequency setting by interacting with HW/FW, and could either take
or update their OPP tables from there. Therefore, if the platform would
require it, they could also expose different controls for frequency
setting and could benefit from additional information about clock
domains (either through opp-shared or the new entries in Nicola's patch),
without driver changes.
Another point to be made is that I strongly believe this is going to be
the norm in the future. Directly setting PLLs and regulator voltages
has been proven unsafe and unsecure.
Therefore, I see this as support for a generic cpufreq feature (a
hardware coordination type), rather than support for a specific driver.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/10/11
Now regarding the 'dependent_cpus' mask.
We could avoid adding a new field 'dependent_cpus' in policy
struct, but I am not sure of one bit - Frequency Invariant Engine,
(which is also not fixed by just adding a new cpumask).
^^
Let's take it step by step..
We have 3 subsystems to fix:
1. EAS - EM has API function which takes custom cpumask, so no issue,
^^
keep in mind that EAS it's using the max aggregation method
that schedutil is using. So if we are to describe the
functionality correctly, it needs both a cpumask describing
the frequency domains and an aggregation method.
EAS does not use schedutil max agregation, it calculates max_util
internally.
But isn't it the same logic mechanism that schedutil uses?
No, it's standalone, slightly different because no ioboosting.
As I said, on issue, just proper cpumask during EM registration is
needed and proper tasks utilization (assuming FIE works in the system).
No need of a new cpumask in policy.
The compute_energy() loops through the CPUs in the domain and
takes the utilization from them via schedutil_cpu_util(cpu_rq(cpu)).
It figures out max_util and then em_cpu_energy() maps it to next
^^^
Same for schedutil: sugov_next_freq_shared() calls sugov_get_util()
which then calls schedutil_cpu_util().
Which we won't have in per-cpu solution and we would use simpler:
sugov_update_single()
and in FIE you won't see the aggregated max freq for the cluster.
Instead you will see N freq requests coming from N CPUs and going
into software FIE.
If your point is that one is applying the max function in compute_energy()
while the other is doing it in sugov_next_f
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 10/12/20 5:52 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: Hi Viresh, On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: Hi Viresh, performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls to cpus, gpus, etc. Let's focus on cpus. Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus or set of cpus. In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the requests it receives on these M controls. Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform (EAS and thermal, for example). A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same clock domain). If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the same cpufreq policy. But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core information for each CPU. - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information down to the drivers. - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq changes (b). Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light. Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this cpumask changed [1]. This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same policy. This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds the real hw clock domains in the policy. This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do you think? *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! Regards, Ionela. This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used: CPU: 01234567 Type: AAAABBBB Cluster: [] perf-contro
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 16:49:30 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > > >>> Hi Viresh, > > > >>> > > > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > > >>> protocol that > > > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > > >>> firmware can > > > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > > > >>> hardware they > > > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > > >>> controls > > > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Let's focus on cpus. > > > >>> > > > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > >>> > > > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > > >>> or set of cpus. > > > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > > >>> requests it receives on these M controls. > > > >>> > > > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily > > > >>> reflect the > > > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > >>> > > > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes > > > >>> the system > > > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > > > >>> policies while > > > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are > > > >>> in the same > > > >>> clock domain). > > > >> > > > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > > > >> same cpufreq policy. > > > > > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > > > >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > > > >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > > > >domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > > > >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > > > >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > > >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > > > > > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: > > > >- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > > > information for each CPU. > > > >- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > > > down to the drivers. > > > >- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > > > > > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > > > changes (b). > > > > > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I > > > would like > > > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > > > some light. > > > > > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally > > > designed > > > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of > > > this > > > cpumask changed [1]. > > > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > > > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > > > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > > > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the > > > same clk > > > domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. > > > > > > My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds > > > the > > > 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Lukasz,
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 14:48:20 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
>
> On 10/12/20 11:59 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 11:22:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > > I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can
> > > > > reuse
> > > > > existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal.
> > > > > The reason
> > > > > being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not
> > > > > necessarily mean
> > > > > that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same
> > > > > capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op
> > > > > points).
> > > > > Unless I am missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > When comparing with ACPI/_PSD it becomes more intuitive that there is
> > > > > no
> > > > > equivalent way to reveal "perf-dependencies" in DT.
> > > >
> > > > You should be able to by examining the clock tree. But perhaps SCMI
> > > > abstracts all that and just presents virtual clocks without parent
> > > > clocks available to determine what clocks are shared? Fix SCMI if that's
> > > > the case.
> > >
> > > True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
> > > (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
> > > 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
> > > described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
> > >
> > > In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
> > > patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
> > >
> > > Something like:
> > >
> > > firmware {
> > > scmi {
> > > ...
> > > scmi-perf-dep {
> > > compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
> > > cpu-perf-dep0 {
> > > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
> > > };
> > > cpu-perf-dep1 {
> > > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
> > > };
> > > cpu-perf-dep2 {
> > > cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
> > > };
> > > };
> > > };
> > > };
> > >
> > > The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
> > > scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
> > >
> >
> > While SCMI cpufreq would be able to benefit from the functionality that
> > Nicola is trying to introduce, it's not the only driver, and more
> > importantly, it's not *going* to be the only driver benefiting from
> > this.
> >
> > Currently there is also qcom-cpufreq-hw.c and the future
> > mediatek-cpufreq-hw.c that is currently under review [1]. They both do
> > their frequency setting by interacting with HW/FW, and could either take
> > or update their OPP tables from there. Therefore, if the platform would
> > require it, they could also expose different controls for frequency
> > setting and could benefit from additional information about clock
> > domains (either through opp-shared or the new entries in Nicola's patch),
> > without driver changes.
> >
> > Another point to be made is that I strongly believe this is going to be
> > the norm in the future. Directly setting PLLs and regulator voltages
> > has been proven unsafe and unsecure.
> >
> > Therefore, I see this as support for a generic cpufreq feature (a
> > hardware coordination type), rather than support for a specific driver.
> >
> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/10/11
> >
> > >
> > > Now regarding the 'dependent_cpus' mask.
> > >
> > > We could avoid adding a new field 'dependent_cpus' in policy
> > > struct, but I am not sure of one bit - Frequency Invariant Engine,
> > > (which is also not fixed by just adding a new cpumask).
> >^^
> >Let's take it step by step..
> > >
> > > We have 3 subsystems to fix:
> > > 1. EAS - EM has API function which takes custom cpumask, so no issue,
> > ^^
> >keep in mind that EAS it's using the max aggregation method
> >that schedutil is using. So if we are to describe the
> >functionality correctly, it needs both a cpumask describing
> >the frequency domains and an aggregation method.
>
> EAS does not use schedutil max agregation, it calculates max_util
> internally.
>
But isn't it the same logic mechanism that schedutil uses?
> The compute_energy() loops through the CPUs in the domain and
> takes the utilization from them via schedutil_cpu_util(cpu_rq(cpu)).
> It figures out max_util and then em_cpu_energy() maps it to next
^^^
Same for schedutil: sugov_next_freq_shared() calls sugov_get_util()
which then calls schedutil_cpu_util().
If your point is that one is applying the max function in compute_energy()
while the other is doing it in sugov_next_freq_shared(), I'll re-enforce
my argument that they are logically doing the
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 05:57:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:03 PM Ionela Voinescu > wrote: [...] > > >The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > And this information hasn't been used so far in those cases. > Indeed, do you see that will change for new heterogeneous CPUs ? Are there any plans to use EAS on those ? -- Regards, Sudeep
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:22:57AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
[...]
>
> True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
> (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
> 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
> described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
>
By firmware, spec refers to DT or ACPI, just to be clear.
> In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
> patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
>
Why ? I prefer to solve this in a generic way and make it not scmi
specific issue. If OPP idea Viresh suggested can be made to work, that
would be good.
> Something like:
>
> firmware {
> scmi {
> ...
> scmi-perf-dep {
> compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
> cpu-perf-dep0 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
> };
> cpu-perf-dep1 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
> };
> cpu-perf-dep2 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
> scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
>
Not completely against it, just need to understand how is this solved
or will be solved for any DT(non SCMI) and why it can be generic.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:01:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. > > > > Please find below my reply. > > > > On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > >> On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > >>> Hi Viresh, > > >>> > > >>> On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > > protocol that > > > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > > firmware can > > > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > > > hardware they > > > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > > controls > > > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > > > > Let's focus on cpus. > > > > > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > > > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > > or set of cpus. > > > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > > requests it receives on these M controls. > > > > > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily > > > reflect the > > > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > > > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes > > > the system > > > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > > > policies while > > > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are > > > in the same > > > clock domain). > > > > If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > > same cpufreq policy. > > >>> > > >>> But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > >>> coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > >>> aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > >>> > > >>> Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > >>> assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > >>> > > >>> In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > >>> > > >>> - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > > >>>send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > > >>>aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > > >>>domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > > >>>which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > > >>>interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > >>>This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > >>> > > >>> - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: > > >>>- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > >>> for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > >>> information for each CPU. > > >>>- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > >>> down to the drivers. > > >>>- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > >>> frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > >>> each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > >>> cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > >>> > > >>> Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > >>> above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > >>> changes (b). > > >> > > >> Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I > > >> would like > > >> to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > > >> some light. > > >> > > >> Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally > > >> designed > > >> to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of > > >> this > > >> cpumask changed [1]. > > >> This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > > >> within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > > >> sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > > >> Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the > > >> same clk > > >> domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. > > >> > > >> My interpretation is that th
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:09:21AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > >>> Hi Viresh, > > >>> > > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > >>> protocol that > > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > >>> firmware can > > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > > >>> hardware they > > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > >>> controls > > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Let's focus on cpus. > > >>> > > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > >>> > > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > >>> or set of cpus. > > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > >>> requests it receives on these M controls. > > >>> > > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect > > >>> the > > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). > > >>> > > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > > >>> system > > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > > >>> policies while > > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > > >>> the same > > >>> clock domain). > > >> > > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > > >> same cpufreq policy. > > > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > > >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > > >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > > >domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > > >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > > >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > > > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: > > >- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > > information for each CPU. > > >- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > > down to the drivers. > > >- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > > > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > > changes (b). > > > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would > > like > > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > > some light. > > > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed > > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this > > cpumask changed [1]. > > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the > > same clk > > domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. > > > > My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the > > 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true > > anymore > > that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same > > policy. > > > > This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always > > holds > > the real hw clock domains in the policy. > > > > > > > > This is my current under
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
+Stephen for clock issues On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:23 AM Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >> Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. > >> > >> Please find below my reply. > >> > >> On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >>> Hi Viresh, > >>> > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > >>> protocol that > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > >>> firmware can > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > >>> hardware they > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > >>> controls > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. > >>> > >>> Let's focus on cpus. > >>> > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > >>> > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > >>> or set of cpus. > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > >>> requests it receives on these M controls. > >>> > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily > >>> reflect the > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). > >>> > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes > >>> the system > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > >>> policies while > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are > >>> in the same > >>> clock domain). > >> > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > >> same cpufreq policy. > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > > send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > > aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > > domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > > which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > > interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to > > allow: > > - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > information for each CPU. > > - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > down to the drivers. > > - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > changes (b). > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I > would like > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > some light. > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally > designed > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of > this > cpumask changed [1]. > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the >
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 10/12/20 11:59 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 11:22:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
[..]
I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can reuse
existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal. The reason
being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not necessarily mean
that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same
capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op points).
Unless I am missing something?
When comparing with ACPI/_PSD it becomes more intuitive that there is no
equivalent way to reveal "perf-dependencies" in DT.
You should be able to by examining the clock tree. But perhaps SCMI
abstracts all that and just presents virtual clocks without parent
clocks available to determine what clocks are shared? Fix SCMI if that's
the case.
True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
(from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
Something like:
firmware {
scmi {
...
scmi-perf-dep {
compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
cpu-perf-dep0 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
};
cpu-perf-dep1 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
};
cpu-perf-dep2 {
cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
};
};
};
};
The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
While SCMI cpufreq would be able to benefit from the functionality that
Nicola is trying to introduce, it's not the only driver, and more
importantly, it's not *going* to be the only driver benefiting from
this.
Currently there is also qcom-cpufreq-hw.c and the future
mediatek-cpufreq-hw.c that is currently under review [1]. They both do
their frequency setting by interacting with HW/FW, and could either take
or update their OPP tables from there. Therefore, if the platform would
require it, they could also expose different controls for frequency
setting and could benefit from additional information about clock
domains (either through opp-shared or the new entries in Nicola's patch),
without driver changes.
Another point to be made is that I strongly believe this is going to be
the norm in the future. Directly setting PLLs and regulator voltages
has been proven unsafe and unsecure.
Therefore, I see this as support for a generic cpufreq feature (a
hardware coordination type), rather than support for a specific driver.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/10/11
Now regarding the 'dependent_cpus' mask.
We could avoid adding a new field 'dependent_cpus' in policy
struct, but I am not sure of one bit - Frequency Invariant Engine,
(which is also not fixed by just adding a new cpumask).
^^
Let's take it step by step..
We have 3 subsystems to fix:
1. EAS - EM has API function which takes custom cpumask, so no issue,
^^
keep in mind that EAS it's using the max aggregation method
that schedutil is using. So if we are to describe the
functionality correctly, it needs both a cpumask describing
the frequency domains and an aggregation method.
EAS does not use schedutil max agregation, it calculates max_util
internally.
The compute_energy() loops through the CPUs in the domain and
takes the utilization from them via schedutil_cpu_util(cpu_rq(cpu)).
It figures out max_util and then em_cpu_energy() maps it to next
frequency for the cluster. It just needs proper utilization from
CPUs, which is taken from run-queues, which is a sum of utilization
of tasks being there. This leads to problem how we account utilization
of a task. This is the place where the FIE is involved. EAS assumes the
utilization is calculated properly.
fix would be to use it via the scmi-cpufreq.c
2. IPA (for calculating the power of a cluster, not whole thermal needs
this knowledge about 'dependent cpus') - this can be fixed internally
3. Frequency Invariant Engine (FIE) - currently it relies on schedutil
filtering and providing max freq of all cpus in the cluster into the
FIE; this info is then populated to all 'related_cpus' which will
have this freq (we know, because there is no other freq requests);
Issues:
3.1. Schedutil is not going to check all cpus in the cluster to take
max freq, which is then passed into the cpufreq
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 10/12/20 11:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:23 PM Lukasz Luba wrote: Hi Rob, On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. Please find below my reply. On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: Hi Viresh, On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: Hi Viresh, performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls to cpus, gpus, etc. Let's focus on cpus. Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus or set of cpus. In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the requests it receives on these M controls. Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform (EAS and thermal, for example). A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same clock domain). If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the same cpufreq policy. But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core information for each CPU. - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information down to the drivers. - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq changes (b). Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light. Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this cpumask changed [1]. This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same policy. This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds the real hw clock domains in the policy. This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do you think? *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! Regards, Ionela. This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used: CPU:
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 11:22:57 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
[..]
> > > I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can reuse
> > > existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal. The
> > > reason
> > > being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not necessarily
> > > mean
> > > that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same
> > > capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op points).
> > > Unless I am missing something?
> > >
> > > When comparing with ACPI/_PSD it becomes more intuitive that there is no
> > > equivalent way to reveal "perf-dependencies" in DT.
> >
> > You should be able to by examining the clock tree. But perhaps SCMI
> > abstracts all that and just presents virtual clocks without parent
> > clocks available to determine what clocks are shared? Fix SCMI if that's
> > the case.
>
> True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
> (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
> 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
> described through firmware tables instead.' [1]
>
> In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
> patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?
>
> Something like:
>
> firmware {
> scmi {
> ...
> scmi-perf-dep {
> compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
> cpu-perf-dep0 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
> };
> cpu-perf-dep1 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
> };
> cpu-perf-dep2 {
> cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
> };
> };
> };
> };
>
> The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
> scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.
>
While SCMI cpufreq would be able to benefit from the functionality that
Nicola is trying to introduce, it's not the only driver, and more
importantly, it's not *going* to be the only driver benefiting from
this.
Currently there is also qcom-cpufreq-hw.c and the future
mediatek-cpufreq-hw.c that is currently under review [1]. They both do
their frequency setting by interacting with HW/FW, and could either take
or update their OPP tables from there. Therefore, if the platform would
require it, they could also expose different controls for frequency
setting and could benefit from additional information about clock
domains (either through opp-shared or the new entries in Nicola's patch),
without driver changes.
Another point to be made is that I strongly believe this is going to be
the norm in the future. Directly setting PLLs and regulator voltages
has been proven unsafe and unsecure.
Therefore, I see this as support for a generic cpufreq feature (a
hardware coordination type), rather than support for a specific driver.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/10/11
>
> Now regarding the 'dependent_cpus' mask.
>
> We could avoid adding a new field 'dependent_cpus' in policy
> struct, but I am not sure of one bit - Frequency Invariant Engine,
> (which is also not fixed by just adding a new cpumask).
^^
Let's take it step by step..
>
> We have 3 subsystems to fix:
> 1. EAS - EM has API function which takes custom cpumask, so no issue,
^^
keep in mind that EAS it's using the max aggregation method
that schedutil is using. So if we are to describe the
functionality correctly, it needs both a cpumask describing
the frequency domains and an aggregation method.
> fix would be to use it via the scmi-cpufreq.c
> 2. IPA (for calculating the power of a cluster, not whole thermal needs
> this knowledge about 'dependent cpus') - this can be fixed internally
> 3. Frequency Invariant Engine (FIE) - currently it relies on schedutil
> filtering and providing max freq of all cpus in the cluster into the
> FIE; this info is then populated to all 'related_cpus' which will
> have this freq (we know, because there is no other freq requests);
> Issues:
> 3.1. Schedutil is not going to check all cpus in the cluster to take
> max freq, which is then passed into the cpufreq driver and FIE
> 3.2. FIE would have to (or maybe we would drop it) have a logic similar
> to what schedutil does (max freq search and set, then filter next
> freq requests from other cpus in the next period e.g. 10ms)
> 3.3. Schedutil is going to invoke freq change for each cpu independently
> and the current code just calls arch_set_freq_scale() - adding just
> 'dependent_cpus' won't help
I don't believe these are issues. As we need changes for EAS and IPA, we'd
need changes for FIE. We d
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:23 PM Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >> Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. > >> > >> Please find below my reply. > >> > >> On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >>> Hi Viresh, > >>> > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > >>> protocol that > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > >>> firmware can > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > >>> hardware they > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > >>> controls > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. > >>> > >>> Let's focus on cpus. > >>> > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > >>> > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > >>> or set of cpus. > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > >>> requests it receives on these M controls. > >>> > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily > >>> reflect the > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). > >>> > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes > >>> the system > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > >>> policies while > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are > >>> in the same > >>> clock domain). > >> > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > >> same cpufreq policy. > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > > send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > > aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > > domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > > which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > > interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to > > allow: > > - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > information for each CPU. > > - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > down to the drivers. > > - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > changes (b). > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I > would like > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > some light. > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally > designed > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of > this > cpumask changed [1]. > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the > same clk > domai
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Rob, On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. Please find below my reply. On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: Hi Viresh, On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: Hi Viresh, performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls to cpus, gpus, etc. Let's focus on cpus. Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus or set of cpus. In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the requests it receives on these M controls. Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform (EAS and thermal, for example). A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same clock domain). If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the same cpufreq policy. But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core information for each CPU. - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information down to the drivers. - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq changes (b). Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light. Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this cpumask changed [1]. This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same policy. This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds the real hw clock domains in the policy. This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do you think? *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! Regards, Ionela. This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used: CPU: 01234567 Type: AAAABBBB Cluster: [
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 09-10-20, 16:28, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > @Viresh > I am sorry I misread your reply earlier thus I did not pay attention on that > property. > And yes, it is exactly as how you have described :) > In the case 1 (different opps, different clk) and case 2 (same opps, different > clk) we provide v/f points. In case 3, we add 'opp-shared' property in opp > table > to tell that the cpus with this opp table share a clock line. > > Here are my thoughts on this 3rd case: > - the information of 'share the same clock line' comes correctly from DT as > it's > purely a hw description. The same applies for cpu-perf-dependencies. > - because the opp table can come from any firmware, we won't have any opp > table > in DT, thus we won't be able to take advantage of 'opp-shared' I am afraid. I wonder if we should use an empty OPP table just for parsing this information. -- viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh and Rob, first of all, thanks once again for looking into this! On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: >> Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. >> >> Please find below my reply. >> >> On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: >>> Hi Viresh, >>> >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a >>> protocol that >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the >>> firmware can >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which >>> hardware they >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these >>> controls >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. >>> >>> Let's focus on cpus. >>> >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. >>> >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus >>> or set of cpus. >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the >>> requests it receives on these M controls. >>> >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect >>> the >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). >>> >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the >>> system >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M >>> policies while >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in >>> the same >>> clock domain). >> >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the >> same cpufreq policy. > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock >domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: >- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > information for each CPU. >- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > down to the drivers. >- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > changes (b). Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light. Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this cpumask changed [1]. This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore th
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. > > Please find below my reply. > > On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >> On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > >>> Hi Viresh, > >>> > >>> On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > protocol that > > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > firmware can > > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > > hardware they > > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > controls > > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > > Let's focus on cpus. > > > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > or set of cpus. > > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > requests it receives on these M controls. > > > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect > > the > > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > > system > > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > > policies while > > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > > the same > > clock domain). > > If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > same cpufreq policy. > >>> > >>> But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > >>> coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > >>> aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > >>> > >>> Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > >>> assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > >>> > >>> In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > >>> > >>> - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > >>>send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > >>>aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > >>>domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > >>>which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > >>>interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > >>>This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > >>> > >>> - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: > >>>- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > >>> for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > >>> information for each CPU. > >>>- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > >>> down to the drivers. > >>>- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > >>> frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > >>> each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > >>> cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > >>> > >>> Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > >>> above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > >>> changes (b). > >> > >> Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would > >> like > >> to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed > >> some light. > >> > >> Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally > >> designed > >> to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of > >> this > >> cpumask changed [1]. > >> This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > >> within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > >> sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > >> Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the > >> same clk > >> domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. > >> > >> My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the > >> 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true > >> anymore > >> that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same > >> policy. > >> > >> This guided me to think it wou
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 09-10-20, 12:10, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can reuse > existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal. The > reason > being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not necessarily mean > that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same > capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op points). No. > Unless I am missing something? Yes. Here are the different scenarios which can happen. - Two CPUs have separate OPP tables, even if they are exact copy of each other, these CPUs don't share a clock line, but just v/f points as you said. - Two CPUs use the same OPP table, i.e. both point to it, but "opp-shared" property is missing. This is same as above case. They just share the v/f points and this is the preferred way instead of duplicate OPP tables. - Case two with "opp-shared" property present in the OPP table. The CPUs share clock-lines. And this is exactly how we find out today if CPUs share a policy or not. -- viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped. Please find below my reply. On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: >> On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: >>> Hi Viresh, >>> >>> On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > protocol that > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > firmware can > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware > they > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > controls > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > Let's focus on cpus. > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > or set of cpus. > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > requests it receives on these M controls. > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > system > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies > while > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > the same > clock domain). If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the same cpufreq policy. >>> >>> But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI >>> coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware >>> aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). >>> >>> Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some >>> assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. >>> >>> In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: >>> >>> - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to >>>send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do >>>aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock >>>domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell >>>which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is >>>interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. >>>This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. >>> >>> - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: >>>- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information >>> for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core >>> information for each CPU. >>>- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information >>> down to the drivers. >>>- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold >>> frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for >>> each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the >>> cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. >>> >>> Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule >>> above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq >>> changes (b). >> >> Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would >> like >> to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed >> some light. >> >> Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed >> to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this >> cpumask changed [1]. >> This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' >> within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for >> sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. >> Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same >> clk >> domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. >> >> My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the >> 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true >> anymore >> that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same >> policy. >> >> This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always >> holds >> the real hw clock domains in the policy. >> >>> >>> This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do >>> you think? >>> >>> *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, >>> while also making
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > >>> Hi Viresh, > >>> > >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > >>> protocol that > >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > >>> firmware can > >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware > >>> they > >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > >>> controls > >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. > >>> > >>> Let's focus on cpus. > >>> > >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > >>> > >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > >>> or set of cpus. > >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > >>> requests it receives on these M controls. > >>> > >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the > >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). > >>> > >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > >>> system > >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies > >>> while > >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > >>> the same > >>> clock domain). > >> > >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > >> same cpufreq policy. > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > >domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: > >- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > > information for each CPU. > >- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > > down to the drivers. > >- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > > changes (b). > > Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would > like > to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some > light. > > Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed > to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this > cpumask changed [1]. > This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' > within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for > sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. > Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same > clk > domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. > > My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the > 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore > that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same > policy. > > This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always > holds > the real hw clock domains in the policy. > > > > > This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do > > you think? > > > > *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, > > while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. > > > > BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! > > > > Reg
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Rafael, On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 17:57:23 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:03 PM Ionela Voinescu > wrote: > > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > > > > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > > > protocol that > > > > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > > > firmware can > > > > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which > > > > hardware they > > > > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > > > controls > > > > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > > > > > > Let's focus on cpus. > > > > > > > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > > > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > > > > > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > > > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > > > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > > > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > > > or set of cpus. > > > > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > > > requests it receives on these M controls. > > > > > > > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect > > > > the > > > > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > > > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > > > > > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > > > > system > > > > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M > > > > policies while > > > > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > > > > the same > > > > clock domain). > > > > > > If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > > > same cpufreq policy. > > > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to > >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do > >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock > >domain. > > This has been done for years on many platforms. Exactly! > > >The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell > >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is > >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. > > And this information hasn't been used so far in those cases. > > >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > What would you use it for, specifically? This would be useful for: - Energy Aware Scheduling: for this you need to know how other CPUs in a clock domain would be impacted by a task placement. For example, if the utilization of a CPU would increase as a result of a certain task placement choice and as a result (for schedutil) its clock rate need would increase as well, this increase in the clock rate, and therefore energy, of the entire domain is considered before making that task placement choice. - Thermal: the usefulness is dependent on the distribution of thermal zones and their attached cooling devices. But with knowledge about what CPUs use the same clock, the thermal governors could cap all dependent CPUs in one go, while for some governor (IPA) knowing about dependent CPUs help with more accurate power allocation, similar to EAS. - Frequency invariance: ideally one would have counters for this, but when lacking counters, even knowing that some CPUs have the same frequency and after using some software aggregation (likely maximum) to establish what that frequency might be, I believe it would still be more useful than no frequency invariance at all. Even if in these cases you don't have accurate information about the frequency that hardware will grant, knowing that some CPUs will change frequency together is useful. Given that some of the above users (EAS, IPA) are proactive and are trying to predict the future state of a system, they did not have completely accurate information to begin with. But not taking into account CPUs sharing a clock will result in too much inaccuracy (that even control loops and can't compensate for). This together with the assumption* that predicted frequencies won't be very far off from granted frequencies will result in maintaining these features in a more useful state. *my assumption, until prov
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh and Ionela, @Viresh, I am sorry it's still not crystal clear, please find an example below. @Ionela, thanks for adding more details. On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: >>> Hi Viresh, >>> >>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol >>> that >>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware >>> can >>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware >>> they >>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these >>> controls >>> to cpus, gpus, etc. >>> >>> Let's focus on cpus. >>> >>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) >>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. >>> >>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer >>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. >>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the >>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus >>> or set of cpus. >>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the >>> requests it receives on these M controls. >>> >>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the >>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform >>> (EAS and thermal, for example). >>> >>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the >>> system >>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies >>> while >>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the >>> same >>> clock domain). >> >> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the >> same cpufreq policy. > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock >domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. > > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: >- Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information > for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core > information for each CPU. >- Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information > down to the drivers. >- Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold > frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for > each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the > cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. > > Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule > above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq > changes (b). Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light. Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this cpumask changed [1]. This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus' within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this. Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk domain when sw coordination is in use [2]. My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same policy. This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds the real hw clock domains in the policy. > > This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do > you think? > > *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, > while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. > > BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! > > Regards, > Ionela. > This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used: CPU: 01
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:03 PM Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > > Hi Viresh, > > > > > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a > > > protocol that > > > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the > > > firmware can > > > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware > > > they > > > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > > controls > > > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > > > > Let's focus on cpus. > > > > > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > > > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > > or set of cpus. > > > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > > requests it receives on these M controls. > > > > > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the > > > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > > > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > > > system > > > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies > > > while > > > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in > > > the same > > > clock domain). > > > > If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > > same cpufreq policy. > > But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI > coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware > aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). > > Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some > assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. > > In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: > > - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to >send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do >aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock >domain. This has been done for years on many platforms. >The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell >which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is >interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. And this information hasn't been used so far in those cases. >This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. What would you use it for, specifically? > - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: Not an option really.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh, On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol > > that > > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware > > can > > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware > > they > > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these > > controls > > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > > > Let's focus on cpus. > > > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > > or set of cpus. > > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > > requests it receives on these M controls. > > > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the > > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the > > system > > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies > > while > > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the > > same > > clock domain). > > If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the > same cpufreq policy. But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs). Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes. In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either: - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy. This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced. - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow: - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core information for each CPU. - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information down to the drivers. - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers. Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq changes (b). This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do you think? *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose, while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT. BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this! Regards, Ionela.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol > that > is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware > can > tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they > are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls > to cpus, gpus, etc. > > Let's focus on cpus. > > Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) > that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. > > However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer > grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. > per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the > OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus > or set of cpus. > In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the > requests it receives on these M controls. > > Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the > underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform > (EAS and thermal, for example). > > A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system > having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while > in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the > same > clock domain). If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the same cpufreq policy. > This performance dependency information is essential for some > components that take information from the cpufreq policy. > > To restore functionality we can use the optional node > 'cpu-performance-dependencies' in dt which will provide such dependency > information and we can add a new cpumask 'dependency_cpus' in policy. > > Hope it gives some clarity. Some, but I am still confused :( Can you give a real example, with exact number of CPUs, how they share clocks/voltage domains and what else the firmware needs in terms of performance-domains ? That may make it easier for me to understand it. -- viresh
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Hi Viresh, performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls to cpus, gpus, etc. Let's focus on cpus. Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w) that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains. However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer grained information about the performance requirements (e.g. per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus or set of cpus. In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the requests it receives on these M controls. Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform (EAS and thermal, for example). A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same clock domain). This performance dependency information is essential for some components that take information from the cpufreq policy. To restore functionality we can use the optional node 'cpu-performance-dependencies' in dt which will provide such dependency information and we can add a new cpumask 'dependency_cpus' in policy. Hope it gives some clarity. Nicola On 10/6/20 8:19 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-09-20, 10:53, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: >> I am seeking some feedback/comments on the following approach. >> >> Intro: >> Info of performance depency for cpus will be beneficial for systems >> where f/w description of the CPU performance control domain is different >> from the clock domain, e.g. per-CPU control with multiple CPUs sharing >> clock, and kernel OSPM s/w components need to take CPU performance >> dependency into account. >> Essentially these s/w components will have to be provided with >> this information from dt and this RFC is presenting a possible way >> to do so. > > I am not sure I understand what performance control mean here. Can you please > elaborate a bit more on that ? For example, with current code and > understanding, > a cpufreq policy belongs to a group of CPUs which change their frequency > together, which also mean that they change their performance level together > and > so I am not able to understand what's going on here. Sorry about that. > > What kind of hardware configuration doesn't work with this ? >
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
On 24-09-20, 10:53, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > I am seeking some feedback/comments on the following approach. > > Intro: > Info of performance depency for cpus will be beneficial for systems > where f/w description of the CPU performance control domain is different > from the clock domain, e.g. per-CPU control with multiple CPUs sharing > clock, and kernel OSPM s/w components need to take CPU performance > dependency into account. > Essentially these s/w components will have to be provided with > this information from dt and this RFC is presenting a possible way > to do so. I am not sure I understand what performance control mean here. Can you please elaborate a bit more on that ? For example, with current code and understanding, a cpufreq policy belongs to a group of CPUs which change their frequency together, which also mean that they change their performance level together and so I am not able to understand what's going on here. Sorry about that. What kind of hardware configuration doesn't work with this ? -- viresh
