Re: [PATCH] x86: intel_epb: Add earlyparam option to keep bias at performance

[David Woodhouse]

On 5 December 2023 12:31:19 GMT, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:15 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 December 2023 12:12:09 GMT, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:00 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paul writes:
>> >> > The problem is that this will take effect even on a kexec and hence it is throttling
>> >> > a system that set ENERGY_PERF_BIAS_PERFORMANCE prior to the kexec.  We use kexec to
>> >> > live update the host kernel of our systems whilst leaving virtual machines running.
>> >> > This resetting of the perf bias is having a very detrimental effect on the downtime
>> >> > of our systems across the live update - about a 7 fold increase.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't just about kexec, is it? Even in a clean boot why wouldn't we want to stay in performance mode until the kernel has *finished* booting?
>> >
>> >Because it may overheat during that period.
>> >
>> >> It's literally adding seconds to the startup time in some cases.
>> >>
>> >> And yes, we *particularly* care in the kexec case because guests experience it as excessive steal time. But it ain't great in the general case either, surely?
>> >
>> >So IMV it would be perfectly fine to add a command line arg to provide
>> >the initial value of energy_perf_bias for the ones who know what they
>> >are doing.
>>
>> We don't even care about setting it to an "initial value" during boot. We just want to leave it how it was already set up.
>
>Which does not work on some systems.
>
>The problem here is that the BIOS cannot be trusted to set the initial
>value that makes sense for the given platform and that's why the code
>is the way it is.

Yeah, I understand why we have the existing hack. We just need a way to disable it when it's doing the wrong thing.