Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] cpufreq: scmi: Register for limit change notifications

From: Sibi Sankar
Date: Mon Jun 03 2024 - 14:48:52 EST




On 5/28/24 14:38, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Sibi,


Hey Vincent,
Thanks for taking time to review the series :)

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 08:42, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Register for limit change notifications if supported and use the throttled
frequency from the notification to apply HW pressure.

Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---

v4:
* Use a interim variable to show the khz calc. [Lukasz]
* Use driver_data to pass on the handle and scmi_dev instead of using
global variables. Dropped Lukasz's Rb due to adding these minor
changes.

drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
index 3b4f6bfb2f4c..d946b7a08258 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
@@ -21,11 +21,18 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/units.h>

+struct scmi_cpufreq_driver_data {
+ struct scmi_device *sdev;
+ const struct scmi_handle *handle;
+};
+
struct scmi_data {
int domain_id;
int nr_opp;
struct device *cpu_dev;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;
+ struct notifier_block limit_notify_nb;
};

static struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph;
@@ -174,6 +181,22 @@ static struct freq_attr *scmi_cpufreq_hw_attr[] = {
NULL,
};

+static int scmi_limit_notify_cb(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long event, void *data)
+{
+ struct scmi_data *priv = container_of(nb, struct scmi_data, limit_notify_nb);
+ struct scmi_perf_limits_report *limit_notify = data;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy = priv->policy;
+ unsigned int limit_freq_khz;
+
+ limit_freq_khz = limit_notify->range_max_freq / HZ_PER_KHZ;
+
+ policy->max = clamp(limit_freq_khz, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
+
+ cpufreq_update_pressure(policy);

I noticed your patch while looking for other things in the archive but
I don't think this is the right way to do it.

cpufreq_update_pressure() aims to set to the scheduler the aggregation
of all cappings set to cpufreq through the pm_qos and
freq_qos_add_request(). Calling this function directly in scmi
notification callback will overwrite the pm_qos aggregation. And at
the opposite, any update of a pm_qos constraint will overwrite scmi
notification. Instead you should better set a pm_qos constraint like
others

Sure, I'll drop update_pressue and use the freq_qos_update_request to
update the policy->max_freq_req with the new policy->max.

-Sibi


+
+ return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
int ret, nr_opp, domain;
@@ -181,6 +204,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
struct device *cpu_dev;
struct scmi_data *priv;
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
+ struct scmi_cpufreq_driver_data *data = cpufreq_get_driver_data();

cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
if (!cpu_dev) {
@@ -294,6 +318,17 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
}
}

+ priv->limit_notify_nb.notifier_call = scmi_limit_notify_cb;
+ ret = data->handle->notify_ops->devm_event_notifier_register(data->sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF,
+ SCMI_EVENT_PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_CHANGED,
+ &domain,
+ &priv->limit_notify_nb);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_warn(cpu_dev,
+ "failed to register for limits change notifier for domain %d\n", domain);
+
+ priv->policy = policy;
+
return 0;

out_free_opp:
@@ -366,12 +401,21 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_probe(struct scmi_device *sdev)
int ret;
struct device *dev = &sdev->dev;
const struct scmi_handle *handle;
+ struct scmi_cpufreq_driver_data *data;

handle = sdev->handle;

if (!handle)
return -ENODEV;

+ data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!data)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ data->sdev = sdev;
+ data->handle = handle;
+ scmi_cpufreq_driver.driver_data = data;
+
perf_ops = handle->devm_protocol_get(sdev, SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, &ph);
if (IS_ERR(perf_ops))
return PTR_ERR(perf_ops);
--
2.34.1