Re: [PATCH 2/8] cpufreq: move invariance setter calls in cpufreq core

[Ionela Voinescu]

Hey,

On Wednesday 01 Jul 2020 at 16:16:19 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 01-07-20, 10:07, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > To properly scale its per-entity load-tracking signals, the task scheduler
> > needs to be given a frequency scale factor, i.e. some image of the current
> > frequency the CPU is running at. Currently, this scale can be computed
> > either by using counters (APERF/MPERF on x86, AMU on arm64), or by
> > piggy-backing on the frequency selection done by cpufreq.
> > 
> > For the latter, drivers have to explicitly set the scale factor
> > themselves, despite it being purely boiler-plate code: the required
> > information depends entirely on the kind of frequency switch callback
> > implemented by the driver, i.e. either of: target_index(), target(),
> > fast_switch() and setpolicy().
> > 
> > The fitness of those callbacks with regard to driving the Frequency
> > Invariance Engine (FIE) is studied below:
> > 
> > target_index()
> > ==============
> > Documentation states that the chosen frequency "must be determined by
> > freq_table[index].frequency". It isn't clear if it *has* to be that
> > frequency, or if it can use that frequency value to do some computation
> > that ultimately leads to a different frequency selection. All drivers
> > go for the former, while the vexpress-spc-cpufreq has an atypical
> > implementation.
> > 
> > Thefore, the hook works on the asusmption the core can use
> > freq_table[index].frequency.
> > 
> > target()
> > =======
> > This has been flagged as deprecated since:
> > 
> >   commit 9c0ebcf78fde ("cpufreq: Implement light weight ->target_index() routine")
> > 
> > It also doesn't have that many users:
> > 
> >   cpufreq-nforce2.c:371:2:	.target = nforce2_target,
> >   cppc_cpufreq.c:416:2:		.target = cppc_cpufreq_set_target,
> >   pcc-cpufreq.c:573:2:		.target = pcc_cpufreq_target,
> > 
> > Should we care about drivers using this hook, we may be able to exploit
> > cpufreq_freq_transition_{being, end}(). Otherwise, if FIE support is
> > desired in their current state, arch_set_freq_scale() could still be
> > called directly by the driver, while CPUFREQ_CUSTOM_SET_FREQ_SCALE
> > could be used to mark support for it.
> > 
> > fast_switch()
> > =============
> > This callback *has* to return the frequency that was selected.
> > 
> > setpolicy()
> > ===========
> > This callback does not have any designated way of informing what was the
> > end choice. But there are only two drivers using setpolicy(), and none
> > of them have current FIE support:
> > 
> >   drivers/cpufreq/longrun.c:281:	.setpolicy	= longrun_set_policy,
> >   drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c:2215:	.setpolicy	= intel_pstate_set_policy,
> > 
> > The intel_pstate is known to use counter-driven frequency invariance.
> 
> Same for acpi-cpufreq driver as well ?
> 

The acpi-cpufreq driver defines target_index() and fast_switch() so it
should go through the setting in cpufreq core. But x86 does not actually
define arch_set_freq_scale() so when called it won't do anything (won't
set any frequency scale factor), but rely on counters to set it through
the arch_scale_freq_tick(). But this cpufreq functionality could
potentially be used.

> And I think we should do the freq-invariance thing for all the above categories
> nevertheless.
> 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You mean we should also (try to) set
the frequency scale factor for drivers defining setpolicy() and target()?

> > If FIE support is desired in their current state, arch_set_freq_scale()
> > could still be called directly by the driver, while
> > CPUFREQ_CUSTOM_SET_FREQ_SCALE could be used to mark support for it.
> > 
> > Conclusion
> > ==========
> > 
> > Given that the significant majority of current FIE enabled drivers use
> > callbacks that lend themselves to triggering the setting of the FIE scale
> > factor in a generic way, move the invariance setter calls to cpufreq core,
> > while filtering drivers that flag custom support using
> > CPUFREQ_CUSTOM_SET_FREQ_SCALE.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 0128de3603df..83b58483a39b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -2046,9 +2046,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifier);
> >  unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  					unsigned int target_freq)
> >  {
> > +	unsigned int freq;
> > +
> >  	target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
> > +	freq = cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > +
> 
> > +	if (freq && !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CUSTOM_SET_FREQ_SCALE))
> > +		arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> > +				    policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> 
> This needs to be a separate function.
> 

Yes, that would be nicer.

> >  
> > -	return cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > +	return freq;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
> >  
> > @@ -2140,7 +2147,7 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  			    unsigned int relation)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned int old_target_freq = target_freq;
> > -	int index;
> > +	int index, retval;
> >  
> >  	if (cpufreq_disabled())
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> > @@ -2171,7 +2178,14 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  
> >  	index = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq, relation);
> >  
> > -	return __target_index(policy, index);
> > +	retval = __target_index(policy, index);
> > +
> > +	if (!retval && !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CUSTOM_SET_FREQ_SCALE))
> > +		arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus,
> > +				    policy->freq_table[index].frequency,
> 
> policy->cur gets updated for both target and target_index type drivers. You can
> use that safely. It gets updated after the postchange notification.
> 

This would allow us to cover the drivers that define target() as well (not
only target_index() and fast_switch()). Looking over the code we only take
that path (calling cpufreq_freq_transition_end()), for 
!CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION. But again, that's only used for
powernow-k8 which is deprecated. 

I'll attempt a nice way to use this.

Thank you very much for the review,
Ionela.

> > +				    policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> > +
> > +	return retval;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__cpufreq_driver_target);
> 
> -- 
> viresh