Re: [PATCH 1/3 v4] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window

From: Pandruvada, Srinivas
Date: Mon Apr 11 2016 - 10:16:46 EST

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH v3] device property: don't bother the drivers with struct property_set"
Previous message: Mark Brown: "Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier"
In reply to: Prarit Bhargava: "Re: [PATCH 1/3 v4] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 07:33 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> On 03/31/2016 02:28 PM, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 08:27 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> > > The MSR_PKG_POWER_INFO register (Intel ASDM, section 14.9.3
> > > "Package RAPL Domain") provides a maximum time window which the
> > > system can support.ÂÂThis window is read-only and is currently
> > > not examined when setting the time windows for the package.
> > >
> > Usually this field has lot of junk. It is not supported uniformly.
> > The system provides this value from another ACPI element called
> > PPCC.
> > If supported this will be inÂ
> >
> > $ /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:00:04.0/power_limits
> > $ grep . *
> > power_limit_0_max_uw:15000000
> > power_limit_0_min_uw:125000
> > power_limit_0_step_uw:1000000
> > power_limit_0_tmax_us:32000000
> > power_limit_0_tmin_us:28000000
> > power_limit_1_max_uw:25000000
> > power_limit_1_min_uw:25000000
> > power_limit_1_step_uw:1000000
> > power_limit_1_tmax_us:0
> > power_limit_1_tmin_us:0
> >
>
> Thanks Srinivas.ÂÂDoes this mean I should check for PPCC?
If your platform has support for this element.
Are you trying to solve specific problem or implement some feature
using RAPL? May be we can help, what time window to set.

Thanks,
Srinivas

>
> P.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Srinivas
> > > This patch implements get_max_time_window_us() and checks the
> > > window
> > > when
> > > a user attempts to set power capping for the package.
> > >
> > > Before the patch it was possible to set the window to, for
> > > example,
> > > 10000
> > > micro seconds:
> > >
> > > [root@intel-chiefriver-03 rhel7]# echo 10000 >
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl\:0/constraint_0_time_window_us;
> > > egrep ^ /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl\:0/constraint_0_time_window_us
> > >
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl:0/constraint_0_time_window_us:1:9765
> > >
> > > but from 'turbostat -d', the package is limited to 976us:
> > >
> > > cpu0: MSR_PKG_POWER_INFO: 0x01200168 (45 W TDP, RAPL 36 - 0 W,
> > > 0.000977 sec.)
> > >
> > > (Note, there appears to be a rounding issue in turbostat which
> > > needs
> > > to
> > > also be fixed.ÂÂLooking at the values in the register it is clear
> > > the
> > > value is 1/1024 = 976us.)
> > >
> > > After the patch we are limited by the maximum time window:
> > >
> > > [root@intel-chiefriver-03 rhel7]# echo 10000 >
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl\:0/constraint_0_time_window_us;
> > > egrep ^ /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl\:0/constraint_0_time_window_us
> > >
> > > -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/intel-rapl/intel-
> > > rapl:0/constraint_0_time_window_us:1:976
> > >
> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Seiichi Ikarashi <s.ikarashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Ajay Thomas <ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Âdrivers/powercap/intel_rapl.cÂÂÂ|ÂÂÂ31
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Âdrivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c |ÂÂÂÂ6 ++++--
> > > Â2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> > > index 6c592dc..feb063d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> > > @@ -493,13 +493,42 @@ static int get_current_power_limit(struct
> > > powercap_zone *power_zone, int id,
> > > Â return ret;
> > > Â}
> > > Â
> > > +static int get_max_time_window(struct powercap_zone *power_zone,
> > > int
> > > id,
> > > + ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂu64 *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rapl_domain *rd;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + u64 val;
> > > +
> > > + get_online_cpus();
> > > + rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(power_zone);
> > > +
> > > + if (rapl_read_data_raw(rd, MAX_TIME_WINDOW, true, &val))
> > > + ret = -EIO;
> > > + else
> > > + *data = val;
> > > +
> > > + put_online_cpus();
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > Âstatic int set_time_window(struct powercap_zone *power_zone, int
> > > id,
> > > Â
> > > u64
> > > window)
> > > Â{
> > > Â struct rapl_domain *rd;
> > > Â int ret = 0;
> > > + u64 max_window;
> > > Â
> > > Â get_online_cpus();
> > > + ret = get_max_time_window(power_zone, id, &max_window);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + if (window > max_window) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > Â rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(power_zone);
> > > Â switch (rd->rpl[id].prim_id) {
> > > Â case PL1_ENABLE:
> > > @@ -511,6 +540,7 @@ static int set_time_window(struct
> > > powercap_zone
> > > *power_zone, int id,
> > > Â default:
> > > Â ret = -EINVAL;
> > > Â }
> > > +out:
> > > Â put_online_cpus();
> > > Â return ret;
> > > Â}
> > > @@ -590,6 +620,7 @@ static const struct
> > > powercap_zone_constraint_ops
> > > constraint_ops = {
> > > Â .set_time_window_us = set_time_window,
> > > Â .get_time_window_us = get_time_window,
> > > Â .get_max_power_uw = get_max_power,
> > > + .get_max_time_window_us = get_max_time_window,
> > > Â .get_name = get_constraint_name,
> > > Â};
> > > Â
> > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> > > b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> > > index 14bde0d..53fad0f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static ssize_t
> > > store_constraint_##_attr(struct
> > > device *dev,\
> > > Â int err; \
> > > Â u64 value; \
> > > Â struct powercap_zone *power_zone =
> > > to_powercap_zone(dev); \
> > > - int id; \
> > > + int id, ret; \
> > > Â struct powercap_zone_constraint *pconst;\
> > > Â \
> > > Â if (!sscanf(dev_attr->attr.name, "constraint_%d_", &id))
> > > \
> > > @@ -113,8 +113,10 @@ static ssize_t
> > > store_constraint_##_attr(struct
> > > device *dev,\
> > > Â if (err) \
> > > Â return -EINVAL; \
> > > Â if (pconst && pconst->ops && pconst->ops->set_##_attr) {
> > > \
> > > - if (!pconst->ops->set_##_attr(power_zone, id,
> > > value)) \
> > > + ret = pconst->ops->set_##_attr(power_zone, id,
> > > value); \
> > > + if (!ret) \
> > > Â return count; \
> > > + return ret; \
> > > Â } \
> > > Â \
> > > Â return -ENODATA; \

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH v3] device property: don't bother the drivers with struct property_set"
Previous message: Mark Brown: "Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: core: Resolve supply earlier"
In reply to: Prarit Bhargava: "Re: [PATCH 1/3 v4] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]