| Message ID | 20240229162520.970986-2-vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: Use AMU counters for measuring CPU frequency | expand |
Hi Vanshidhar, On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:25:13AM -0800, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to > estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU > counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU > frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters > during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the > core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency > of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > #include <linux/init.h> > #include <linux/percpu.h> > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> > +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> > > #include <asm/cpu.h> > #include <asm/cputype.h> > @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) > #undef pr_fmt > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt > > +struct amu_counters { > + seqcount_t seq; > + unsigned long last_update; > + u64 core_cnt; > + u64 const_cnt; > + u64 delta_core_cnt; > + u64 delta_const_cnt; > +}; It still might not be necessary to track both last taken sample and deltas from previous ones, see[1]. I could send v3 of [1] and take into account the changes you have suggested here, namely the last tick recorded. Otherwise few comments below. > + > /* > * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until > * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly > * initialized. > */ > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = > + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, cpu_samples) = { > + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) > +}; > static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; > > void update_freq_counters_refs(void) > { > - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); > - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); > + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; > + > + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); > + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); > + > + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || > + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { > + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; Not sure if zero-ing is really necessary here > + return; > + } > + > + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; > + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; > + > + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; > + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; > + > + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); > + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; > + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); > } > > static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) > @@ -108,8 +144,7 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) > return false; > } > > - if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) || > - !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) { > + if (unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu) == NULL)) { > pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu); > return false; > } > @@ -152,19 +187,15 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate) > > static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) > { > - u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt; > - u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale; > - > - prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); > - prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); > + u64 delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt, scale; > > update_freq_counters_refs(); > > - const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); > - core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); > + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; > + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; > > - if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt || > - const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt)) > + if ((delta_const_cnt == 0) || (delta_core_cnt == 0)) > return; > > /* > @@ -175,15 +206,62 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) > * See validate_cpu_freq_invariance_counters() for details on > * arch_max_freq_scale and the use of SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT. > */ > - scale = core_cnt - prev_core_cnt; > + scale = delta_core_cnt; > scale *= this_cpu_read(arch_max_freq_scale); > scale = div64_u64(scale >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, > - const_cnt - prev_const_cnt); > + delta_const_cnt); > > scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); > this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale); > } > > +/* > + * Discard samples older than the define maximum sample age of 20ms. There > + * is no point in sending IPIs in such a case. If the scheduler tick was > + * not running then the CPU is either idle or isolated. > + */ > +#define MAX_SAMPLE_AGE ((unsigned long)HZ / 50) This depends on the config, so for HZ_1000 it will indeed give 20ms, for CONFIG_250 that will be 5ms. It might be better to set it to number of expected missed ticks instead ? Or amend the comment. > + > +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu) > +{ > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu); > + u64 delta_const_cnt, delta_core_cnt; > + unsigned int seq, freq; > + unsigned long last; > + > + if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu)) > + goto fallback; > + > + do { > + seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); > + last = cpu_sample->last_update; > + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; > + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&cpu_sample->seq, seq)); > + This seems to be taken from APERF/MPERF relevant code. Including the comments. > + /* > + * Bail on invalid count and when the last update was too long ago, > + * which covers idle and NOHZ full CPUs. > + */ > + if (!delta_const_cnt || ((jiffies - last) > MAX_SAMPLE_AGE)) { Shouldn't the first condition (non-zero increase of cnt_cycles counter) disqualify the sample taken altogether ? > + if (!(housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) && idle_cpu(cpu))) > + goto fallback; Not entirely convinced that this condition is what is expected ? For housekeeping cpu that is not idle it will still resolve to AMU counters, not sure if that's what was intended ? Also, for cases when given cpufreq policy spans more than a single core, the frequency might be queried based on relevant CPU that might have seen the tick within specified timeframe (see [1]) > + } > + > + /* > + * CPU frequency = reference perf (in Hz) * (/\ delivered) / (/\ reference) > + * AMU reference performance counter increment rate is equal to the rate > + * of increment of the System counter, CNTPCT_EL0 and can be used to > + * compute the CPU frequency. > + */ > + return div64_u64((delta_core_cnt * (arch_timer_get_rate() / HZ)), /HZ/HZ_PER_KHZ ? > + delta_const_cnt); > + > +fallback: > + freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpu); > + return freq ? freq : cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu); If the arch specific code cannot determine the frequency it should actually make it clear by returning '0' instead of trying to patch things up by itself (?) Overall I'd prefer to revive [1] and amened it accordingly instead. --- [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/ --- Best Regards Beata > +} > + > static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = { > .source = SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_ARCH, > .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick, > -- > 2.43.1 >
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 09:24:19AM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote: > >Hi Vanshidhar, > >On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:25:13AM -0800, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: >> AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to >> estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU >> counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU >> frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters >> during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the >> core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. >> >> arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency >> of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >> index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ >> #include <linux/cpufreq.h> >> #include <linux/init.h> >> #include <linux/percpu.h> >> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> >> +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> >> >> #include <asm/cpu.h> >> #include <asm/cputype.h> >> @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) >> #undef pr_fmt >> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt >> >> +struct amu_counters { >> + seqcount_t seq; >> + unsigned long last_update; >> + u64 core_cnt; >> + u64 const_cnt; >> + u64 delta_core_cnt; >> + u64 delta_const_cnt; >> +}; >It still might not be necessary to track both last taken sample and deltas from >previous ones, see[1]. >I could send v3 of [1] and take into account the changes you have suggested here, >namely the last tick recorded. Otherwise few comments below. For this specific patch it might suffice to just track the deltas. The reason for storing the core_cnt/const_cnt values is for the case where CPU is idle and we are trying to read the read the counters through CPPC FFH - see patch 3 of this series. One of the drawbacks of updating/merging just [1] as a standalone patch is that it doesn't cover idle or isolated CPUs. This patch series accounts for those cases as well. I'm open to suggestions on how we can make that happen with [1]. I tested v2 of [1] on AmpereOne system and noticed that there were some inconsistent measurements reported - see [2]. I think that might be due to frequency scale not being updated when CPU goes idle. >> + >> /* >> * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until >> * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly >> * initialized. >> */ >> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); >> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); >> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = >> + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, cpu_samples) = { >> + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) >> +}; >> static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; >> >> void update_freq_counters_refs(void) >> { >> - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); >> - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); >> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); >> + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; >> + >> + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); >> + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); >> + >> + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || >> + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { >> + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); >> + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; >> + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; >Not sure if zero-ing is really necessary here I can remove that for the next version. >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; >> + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; >> + >> + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; >> + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; >> + >> + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); >> + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; >> + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; >> + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; >> + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); >> } >> >> static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) >> @@ -108,8 +144,7 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) >> return false; >> } >> >> - if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) || >> - !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) { >> + if (unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu) == NULL)) { >> pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu); >> return false; >> } >> @@ -152,19 +187,15 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate) >> >> static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) >> { >> - u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt; >> - u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale; >> - >> - prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); >> - prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); >> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); >> + u64 delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt, scale; >> >> update_freq_counters_refs(); >> >> - const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); >> - core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); >> + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; >> + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; >> >> - if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt || >> - const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt)) >> + if ((delta_const_cnt == 0) || (delta_core_cnt == 0)) >> return; >> >> /* >> @@ -175,15 +206,62 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) >> * See validate_cpu_freq_invariance_counters() for details on >> * arch_max_freq_scale and the use of SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT. >> */ >> - scale = core_cnt - prev_core_cnt; >> + scale = delta_core_cnt; >> scale *= this_cpu_read(arch_max_freq_scale); >> scale = div64_u64(scale >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, >> - const_cnt - prev_const_cnt); >> + delta_const_cnt); >> >> scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); >> this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale); >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Discard samples older than the define maximum sample age of 20ms. There >> + * is no point in sending IPIs in such a case. If the scheduler tick was >> + * not running then the CPU is either idle or isolated. >> + */ >> +#define MAX_SAMPLE_AGE ((unsigned long)HZ / 50) >This depends on the config, so for HZ_1000 it will indeed give 20ms, >for CONFIG_250 that will be 5ms. It might be better to set it to number of >expected missed ticks instead ? Or amend the comment. I think using jiffies/missed ticks is probably better. I'll update for next version. >> + >> +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu) >> +{ >> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu); >> + u64 delta_const_cnt, delta_core_cnt; >> + unsigned int seq, freq; >> + unsigned long last; >> + >> + if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu)) >> + goto fallback; >> + >> + do { >> + seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); >> + last = cpu_sample->last_update; >> + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; >> + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; >> + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&cpu_sample->seq, seq)); >> + >This seems to be taken from APERF/MPERF relevant code. Including the comments. Yes. The idea for this patch series is based on APERF/MPERF which are quite similar to AMU counters. >> + /* >> + * Bail on invalid count and when the last update was too long ago, >> + * which covers idle and NOHZ full CPUs. >> + */ >> + if (!delta_const_cnt || ((jiffies - last) > MAX_SAMPLE_AGE)) { >Shouldn't the first condition (non-zero increase of cnt_cycles counter) >disqualify the sample taken altogether ? I was updating delta_*_cnt values to 0 in one case above. If we just drop that sample and don't set delta_*_cnt values to 0 we wouldn't need this check. I will remove that in the next version. >> + if (!(housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) && idle_cpu(cpu))) >> + goto fallback; >Not entirely convinced that this condition is what is expected ? >For housekeeping cpu that is not idle it will still resolve to AMU counters, >not sure if that's what was intended ? For a CPU that is not idle my preference is that it uses AMU counters for frequency measurement. For idle and isolcpus we fallback to the CPPC mechanism - which could be through MMIO or PCC. >Also, for cases when given cpufreq policy spans more than a single core, the >frequency might be queried based on relevant CPU that might have seen the tick >within specified timeframe (see [1]) > This would not be ideal. On Ampere systems I've not come across a cpufreq policy that spans multiple cores, so I overlooked that configuration. >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * CPU frequency = reference perf (in Hz) * (/\ delivered) / (/\ reference) >> + * AMU reference performance counter increment rate is equal to the rate >> + * of increment of the System counter, CNTPCT_EL0 and can be used to >> + * compute the CPU frequency. >> + */ >> + return div64_u64((delta_core_cnt * (arch_timer_get_rate() / HZ)), >/HZ/HZ_PER_KHZ ? >> + delta_const_cnt); >> + >> +fallback: >> + freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpu); >> + return freq ? freq : cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu); >If the arch specific code cannot determine the frequency it should actually make >it clear by returning '0' instead of trying to patch things up by itself (?) > This was following the same logic as APERF/MPERF logic. Returning 0 from here would result in a call to cpufreq_driver->get() vs a call to cpufreq_quick_get(). The only difference I can tell is that cpufreq_quick_get() will call read_lock_irqsave() before calling cpufreq_driver->get(). I don't have enough knowledge to point out which one is more appropriate. Following the same logic as the x86 implementation seemed more prudent. >Overall I'd prefer to revive [1] and amened it accordingly instead. > As mentioned earlier, I'm ok with what leads to a coherent solution for all the configurations we have - isolcpus, idle and active in housekeeping_cpus. This issue impacts existing Ampere products. It would be great if we could arrive at a solution soon. >--- >[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/ [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/7eozim2xnepacnnkzxlbx34hib4otycnbn4dqymfziqou5lw5u@5xzpv3t7sxo3/ Thanks for the discussion. Vanshi >--- >Best Regards >Beata >> +} >> + >> static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = { >> .source = SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_ARCH, >> .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick, >> -- >> 2.43.1 >>
Hi Vanshidhar, 在 2024/3/1 0:25, Vanshidhar Konda 写道: > AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to > estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU > counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU > frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters > during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the > core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency > of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > #include <linux/init.h> > #include <linux/percpu.h> > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> > +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> > > #include <asm/cpu.h> > #include <asm/cputype.h> > @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) > #undef pr_fmt > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt > > +struct amu_counters { > + seqcount_t seq; > + unsigned long last_update; > + u64 core_cnt; > + u64 const_cnt; > + u64 delta_core_cnt; > + u64 delta_const_cnt; > +}; > + > /* > * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until > * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly > * initialized. > */ > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = > + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, cpu_samples) = { > + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) > +}; > static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; > > void update_freq_counters_refs(void) > { > - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); > - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); > + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; > + > + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); > + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); > + > + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || > + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { The two counter register might be wrap around. So here is not fully true, right? If we don't consider this case, below warning should be removed. > + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; > + return; > + } > + > + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; > + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; > + > + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; > + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; > + > + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); > + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; > + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); > } <...>
在 2024/3/7 6:04, Vanshidhar Konda 写道: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 09:24:19AM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote: >> >> Hi Vanshidhar, >> >> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:25:13AM -0800, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: >>> AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to >>> estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU >>> counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU >>> frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters >>> during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the >>> core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. >>> >>> arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency >>> of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >>> index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c >>> @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ >>> #include <linux/cpufreq.h> >>> #include <linux/init.h> >>> #include <linux/percpu.h> >>> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> >>> +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> >>> >>> #include <asm/cpu.h> >>> #include <asm/cputype.h> >>> @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) >>> #undef pr_fmt >>> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt >>> >>> +struct amu_counters { >>> + seqcount_t seq; >>> + unsigned long last_update; >>> + u64 core_cnt; >>> + u64 const_cnt; >>> + u64 delta_core_cnt; >>> + u64 delta_const_cnt; >>> +}; >> It still might not be necessary to track both last taken sample and >> deltas from >> previous ones, see[1]. >> I could send v3 of [1] and take into account the changes you have >> suggested here, >> namely the last tick recorded. Otherwise few comments below. > > For this specific patch it might suffice to just track the deltas. The > reason for storing the core_cnt/const_cnt values is for the case where > CPU is idle and we are trying to read the read the counters through CPPC > FFH - see patch 3 of this series. > > One of the drawbacks of updating/merging just [1] as a standalone > patch is > that it doesn't cover idle or isolated CPUs. This patch series accounts > for those cases as well. I'm open to suggestions on how we can make that > happen with [1]. > > I tested v2 of [1] on AmpereOne system and noticed that there were some > inconsistent measurements reported - see [2]. I think that might be > due to > frequency scale not being updated when CPU goes idle. > >>> + >>> /* >>> * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return >>> SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until >>> * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly >>> * initialized. >>> */ >>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, >>> arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); >>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); >>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); >>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, >>> arch_max_freq_scale) = >>> + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); >>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, >>> cpu_samples) = { >>> + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) >>> +}; >>> static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; >>> >>> void update_freq_counters_refs(void) >>> { >>> - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); >>> - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); >>> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); >>> + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; >>> + >>> + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); >>> + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); >>> + >>> + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || >>> + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { >>> + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); >>> + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; >>> + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; >> Not sure if zero-ing is really necessary here > > I can remove that for the next version. > >>> + return; >>> + } >>> + >>> + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; >>> + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; >>> + >>> + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; >>> + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; >>> + >>> + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); >>> + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; >>> + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; >>> + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; >>> + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); >>> } >>> >>> static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) >>> @@ -108,8 +144,7 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) >>> return false; >>> } >>> >>> - if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) || >>> - !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) { >>> + if (unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu) == NULL)) { >>> pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu); >>> return false; >>> } >>> @@ -152,19 +187,15 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 >>> max_rate) >>> >>> static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) >>> { >>> - u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt; >>> - u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale; >>> - >>> - prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); >>> - prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); >>> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); >>> + u64 delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt, scale; >>> >>> update_freq_counters_refs(); >>> >>> - const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); >>> - core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); >>> + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; >>> + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; >>> >>> - if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt || >>> - const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt)) >>> + if ((delta_const_cnt == 0) || (delta_core_cnt == 0)) >>> return; >>> >>> /* >>> @@ -175,15 +206,62 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) >>> * See validate_cpu_freq_invariance_counters() for details on >>> * arch_max_freq_scale and the use of SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT. >>> */ >>> - scale = core_cnt - prev_core_cnt; >>> + scale = delta_core_cnt; >>> scale *= this_cpu_read(arch_max_freq_scale); >>> scale = div64_u64(scale >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, >>> - const_cnt - prev_const_cnt); >>> + delta_const_cnt); >>> >>> scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); >>> this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale); >>> } >>> >>> +/* >>> + * Discard samples older than the define maximum sample age of >>> 20ms. There >>> + * is no point in sending IPIs in such a case. If the scheduler >>> tick was >>> + * not running then the CPU is either idle or isolated. >>> + */ >>> +#define MAX_SAMPLE_AGE ((unsigned long)HZ / 50) >> This depends on the config, so for HZ_1000 it will indeed give 20ms, >> for CONFIG_250 that will be 5ms. It might be better to set it to >> number of >> expected missed ticks instead ? Or amend the comment. > > I think using jiffies/missed ticks is probably better. I'll update for > next version. > >>> + >>> +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu) >>> +{ >>> + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu); >>> + u64 delta_const_cnt, delta_core_cnt; >>> + unsigned int seq, freq; >>> + unsigned long last; >>> + >>> + if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu)) >>> + goto fallback; >>> + >>> + do { >>> + seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); >>> + last = cpu_sample->last_update; >>> + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; >>> + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; >>> + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&cpu_sample->seq, seq)); >>> + >> This seems to be taken from APERF/MPERF relevant code. Including the >> comments. > > Yes. The idea for this patch series is based on APERF/MPERF which are > quite similar to AMU counters. > >>> + /* >>> + * Bail on invalid count and when the last update was too long >>> ago, >>> + * which covers idle and NOHZ full CPUs. >>> + */ >>> + if (!delta_const_cnt || ((jiffies - last) > MAX_SAMPLE_AGE)) { >> Shouldn't the first condition (non-zero increase of cnt_cycles counter) >> disqualify the sample taken altogether ? > > I was updating delta_*_cnt values to 0 in one case above. If we just > drop that sample and don't set delta_*_cnt values to 0 we wouldn't need > this check. I will remove that in the next version. > >>> + if (!(housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) && idle_cpu(cpu))) >>> + goto fallback; >> Not entirely convinced that this condition is what is expected ? >> For housekeeping cpu that is not idle it will still resolve to AMU >> counters, >> not sure if that's what was intended ? > > For a CPU that is not idle my preference is that it uses AMU counters > for frequency measurement. For idle and isolcpus we fallback to the CPPC > mechanism - which could be through MMIO or PCC. > >> Also, for cases when given cpufreq policy spans more than a single >> core, the >> frequency might be queried based on relevant CPU that might have seen >> the tick >> within specified timeframe (see [1]) >> > > This would not be ideal. On Ampere systems I've not come across a > cpufreq policy that spans multiple cores, so I overlooked that > configuration. > >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * CPU frequency = reference perf (in Hz) * (/\ delivered) / >>> (/\ reference) >>> + * AMU reference performance counter increment rate is equal to >>> the rate >>> + * of increment of the System counter, CNTPCT_EL0 and can be >>> used to >>> + * compute the CPU frequency. >>> + */ >>> + return div64_u64((delta_core_cnt * (arch_timer_get_rate() / HZ)), >> /HZ/HZ_PER_KHZ ? >>> + delta_const_cnt); >>> + >>> +fallback: >>> + freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpu); >>> + return freq ? freq : cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu); >> If the arch specific code cannot determine the frequency it should >> actually make >> it clear by returning '0' instead of trying to patch things up by >> itself (?) >> > > This was following the same logic as APERF/MPERF logic. Returning 0 from > here would result in a call to cpufreq_driver->get() vs a call to > cpufreq_quick_get(). The only difference I can tell is that > cpufreq_quick_get() will call read_lock_irqsave() before calling > cpufreq_driver->get(). I don't have enough knowledge to point out > which one is more appropriate. Following the same logic as the x86 > implementation seemed more prudent. > >> Overall I'd prefer to revive [1] and amened it accordingly instead. >> > > As mentioned earlier, I'm ok with what leads to a coherent solution for > all the configurations we have - isolcpus, idle and active in > housekeeping_cpus. > > This issue impacts existing Ampere products. It would be great if we > could arrive at a solution soon. +1 to have a solution soon, very expecting. @Vanshi and @Beata. > >> --- >> [1] >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/ > [2] - > https://lore.kernel.org/all/7eozim2xnepacnnkzxlbx34hib4otycnbn4dqymfziqou5lw5u@5xzpv3t7sxo3/ > > Thanks for the discussion. > > Vanshi > >> --- >> Best Regards >> Beata >>> +} >>> + >>> static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = { >>> .source = SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_ARCH, >>> .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick, >>> -- >>> 2.43.1 >>> > .
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:20:46AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote: > > 在 2024/3/7 6:04, Vanshidhar Konda 写道: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 09:24:19AM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote: > > > > > > Hi Vanshidhar, > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:25:13AM -0800, Vanshidhar Konda wrote: > > > > AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to > > > > estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU > > > > counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU > > > > frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters > > > > during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the > > > > core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. > > > > > > > > arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency > > > > of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > > > index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > > > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ > > > > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > > > > #include <linux/init.h> > > > > #include <linux/percpu.h> > > > > +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> > > > > +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> > > > > > > > > #include <asm/cpu.h> > > > > #include <asm/cputype.h> > > > > @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) > > > > #undef pr_fmt > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt > > > > > > > > +struct amu_counters { > > > > + seqcount_t seq; > > > > + unsigned long last_update; > > > > + u64 core_cnt; > > > > + u64 const_cnt; > > > > + u64 delta_core_cnt; > > > > + u64 delta_const_cnt; > > > > +}; > > > It still might not be necessary to track both last taken sample and > > > deltas from > > > previous ones, see[1]. > > > I could send v3 of [1] and take into account the changes you have > > > suggested here, > > > namely the last tick recorded. Otherwise few comments below. > > > > For this specific patch it might suffice to just track the deltas. The > > reason for storing the core_cnt/const_cnt values is for the case where > > CPU is idle and we are trying to read the read the counters through CPPC > > FFH - see patch 3 of this series. > > > > One of the drawbacks of updating/merging just [1] as a standalone patch > > is > > that it doesn't cover idle or isolated CPUs. This patch series accounts > > for those cases as well. I'm open to suggestions on how we can make that > > happen with [1]. > > > > I tested v2 of [1] on AmpereOne system and noticed that there were some > > inconsistent measurements reported - see [2]. I think that might be due > > to > > frequency scale not being updated when CPU goes idle. > > > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return > > > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until > > > > * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly > > > > * initialized. > > > > */ > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, > > > > arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, > > > > arch_max_freq_scale) = > > > > + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, > > > > cpu_samples) = { > > > > + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) > > > > +}; > > > > static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; > > > > > > > > void update_freq_counters_refs(void) > > > > { > > > > - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); > > > > - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); > > > > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); > > > > + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; > > > > + > > > > + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); > > > > + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); > > > > + > > > > + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || > > > > + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { > > > > + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); > > > > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; > > > > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; > > > Not sure if zero-ing is really necessary here > > > > I can remove that for the next version. > > > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; > > > > + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; > > > > + > > > > + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; > > > > + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; > > > > + > > > > + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); > > > > + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; > > > > + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; > > > > + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; > > > > + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); > > > > } > > > > > > > > static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) > > > > @@ -108,8 +144,7 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) > > > > return false; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) || > > > > - !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) { > > > > + if (unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu) == NULL)) { > > > > pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu); > > > > return false; > > > > } > > > > @@ -152,19 +187,15 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 > > > > max_rate) > > > > > > > > static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) > > > > { > > > > - u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt; > > > > - u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale; > > > > - > > > > - prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); > > > > - prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); > > > > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); > > > > + u64 delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt, scale; > > > > > > > > update_freq_counters_refs(); > > > > > > > > - const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); > > > > - core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); > > > > + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; > > > > + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; > > > > > > > > - if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt || > > > > - const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt)) > > > > + if ((delta_const_cnt == 0) || (delta_core_cnt == 0)) > > > > return; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > @@ -175,15 +206,62 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) > > > > * See validate_cpu_freq_invariance_counters() for details on > > > > * arch_max_freq_scale and the use of SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT. > > > > */ > > > > - scale = core_cnt - prev_core_cnt; > > > > + scale = delta_core_cnt; > > > > scale *= this_cpu_read(arch_max_freq_scale); > > > > scale = div64_u64(scale >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, > > > > - const_cnt - prev_const_cnt); > > > > + delta_const_cnt); > > > > > > > > scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); > > > > this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > + * Discard samples older than the define maximum sample age of > > > > 20ms. There > > > > + * is no point in sending IPIs in such a case. If the scheduler > > > > tick was > > > > + * not running then the CPU is either idle or isolated. > > > > + */ > > > > +#define MAX_SAMPLE_AGE ((unsigned long)HZ / 50) > > > This depends on the config, so for HZ_1000 it will indeed give 20ms, > > > for CONFIG_250 that will be 5ms. It might be better to set it to > > > number of > > > expected missed ticks instead ? Or amend the comment. > > > > I think using jiffies/missed ticks is probably better. I'll update for > > next version. > > > > > > + > > > > +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu); > > > > + u64 delta_const_cnt, delta_core_cnt; > > > > + unsigned int seq, freq; > > > > + unsigned long last; > > > > + > > > > + if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu)) > > > > + goto fallback; > > > > + > > > > + do { > > > > + seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); > > > > + last = cpu_sample->last_update; > > > > + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; > > > > + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; > > > > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&cpu_sample->seq, seq)); > > > > + > > > This seems to be taken from APERF/MPERF relevant code. Including the > > > comments. > > > > Yes. The idea for this patch series is based on APERF/MPERF which are > > quite similar to AMU counters. > > > > > > + /* > > > > + * Bail on invalid count and when the last update was too > > > > long ago, > > > > + * which covers idle and NOHZ full CPUs. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (!delta_const_cnt || ((jiffies - last) > MAX_SAMPLE_AGE)) { > > > Shouldn't the first condition (non-zero increase of cnt_cycles counter) > > > disqualify the sample taken altogether ? > > > > I was updating delta_*_cnt values to 0 in one case above. If we just > > drop that sample and don't set delta_*_cnt values to 0 we wouldn't need > > this check. I will remove that in the next version. > > > > > > + if (!(housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) && idle_cpu(cpu))) > > > > + goto fallback; > > > Not entirely convinced that this condition is what is expected ? > > > For housekeeping cpu that is not idle it will still resolve to AMU > > > counters, > > > not sure if that's what was intended ? > > > > For a CPU that is not idle my preference is that it uses AMU counters > > for frequency measurement. For idle and isolcpus we fallback to the CPPC > > mechanism - which could be through MMIO or PCC. > > > > > Also, for cases when given cpufreq policy spans more than a single > > > core, the > > > frequency might be queried based on relevant CPU that might have > > > seen the tick > > > within specified timeframe (see [1]) > > > > > > > This would not be ideal. On Ampere systems I've not come across a > > cpufreq policy that spans multiple cores, so I overlooked that > > configuration. > > > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * CPU frequency = reference perf (in Hz) * (/\ delivered) > > > > / (/\ reference) > > > > + * AMU reference performance counter increment rate is > > > > equal to the rate > > > > + * of increment of the System counter, CNTPCT_EL0 and can > > > > be used to > > > > + * compute the CPU frequency. > > > > + */ > > > > + return div64_u64((delta_core_cnt * (arch_timer_get_rate() / HZ)), > > > /HZ/HZ_PER_KHZ ? > > > > + delta_const_cnt); > > > > + > > > > +fallback: > > > > + freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpu); > > > > + return freq ? freq : cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu); > > > If the arch specific code cannot determine the frequency it should > > > actually make > > > it clear by returning '0' instead of trying to patch things up by > > > itself (?) > > > > > > > This was following the same logic as APERF/MPERF logic. Returning 0 from > > here would result in a call to cpufreq_driver->get() vs a call to > > cpufreq_quick_get(). The only difference I can tell is that > > cpufreq_quick_get() will call read_lock_irqsave() before calling > > cpufreq_driver->get(). I don't have enough knowledge to point out > > which one is more appropriate. Following the same logic as the x86 > > implementation seemed more prudent. > > > > > Overall I'd prefer to revive [1] and amened it accordingly instead. > > > > > > > As mentioned earlier, I'm ok with what leads to a coherent solution for > > all the configurations we have - isolcpus, idle and active in > > housekeeping_cpus. > > > > This issue impacts existing Ampere products. It would be great if we > > could arrive at a solution soon. > +1 to have a solution soon, very expecting. @Vanshi and @Beata. Understood. Will prepare new version - should be out by Monday. Apologies for delays on my side. --- BR Beata > > > > > --- > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@arm.com/ > > [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/7eozim2xnepacnnkzxlbx34hib4otycnbn4dqymfziqou5lw5u@5xzpv3t7sxo3/ > > > > Thanks for the discussion. > > > > Vanshi > > > > > --- > > > Best Regards > > > Beata > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = { > > > > .source = SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_ARCH, > > > > .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick, > > > > -- > > > > 2.43.1 > > > > > > .
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c index 1a2c72f3e7f8..db8d14525cf4 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ #include <linux/cpufreq.h> #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/percpu.h> +#include <linux/sched/isolation.h> +#include <linux/seqlock_types.h> #include <asm/cpu.h> #include <asm/cputype.h> @@ -82,20 +84,54 @@ int __init parse_acpi_topology(void) #undef pr_fmt #define pr_fmt(fmt) "AMU: " fmt +struct amu_counters { + seqcount_t seq; + unsigned long last_update; + u64 core_cnt; + u64 const_cnt; + u64 delta_core_cnt; + u64 delta_const_cnt; +}; + /* * Ensure that amu_scale_freq_tick() will return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE until * the CPU capacity and its associated frequency have been correctly * initialized. */ -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_const_cycles_prev); -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_core_cycles_prev); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, arch_max_freq_scale) = + 1UL << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct amu_counters, cpu_samples) = { + .seq = SEQCNT_ZERO(cpu_samples.seq) +}; static cpumask_var_t amu_fie_cpus; void update_freq_counters_refs(void) { - this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, read_corecnt()); - this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, read_constcnt()); + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt; + + const_cnt = read_constcnt(); + core_cnt = read_corecnt(); + + if (unlikely(core_cnt < cpu_sample->core_cnt) || + unlikely(const_cnt < cpu_sample->const_cnt)) { + WARN(1, "AMU counter values should be monotonic.\n"); + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = 0; + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = 0; + return; + } + + delta_core_cnt = core_cnt - cpu_sample->core_cnt; + delta_const_cnt = const_cnt - cpu_sample->const_cnt; + + cpu_sample->core_cnt = core_cnt; + cpu_sample->const_cnt = const_cnt; + + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); + cpu_sample->last_update = jiffies; + cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt = delta_const_cnt; + cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt = delta_core_cnt; + raw_write_seqcount_end(&cpu_sample->seq); } static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) @@ -108,8 +144,7 @@ static inline bool freq_counters_valid(int cpu) return false; } - if (unlikely(!per_cpu(arch_const_cycles_prev, cpu) || - !per_cpu(arch_core_cycles_prev, cpu))) { + if (unlikely(per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu) == NULL)) { pr_debug("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu); return false; } @@ -152,19 +187,15 @@ void freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate) static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) { - u64 prev_core_cnt, prev_const_cnt; - u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, scale; - - prev_const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); - prev_core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples); + u64 delta_core_cnt, delta_const_cnt, scale; update_freq_counters_refs(); - const_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_const_cycles_prev); - core_cnt = this_cpu_read(arch_core_cycles_prev); + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; - if (unlikely(core_cnt <= prev_core_cnt || - const_cnt <= prev_const_cnt)) + if ((delta_const_cnt == 0) || (delta_core_cnt == 0)) return; /* @@ -175,15 +206,62 @@ static void amu_scale_freq_tick(void) * See validate_cpu_freq_invariance_counters() for details on * arch_max_freq_scale and the use of SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT. */ - scale = core_cnt - prev_core_cnt; + scale = delta_core_cnt; scale *= this_cpu_read(arch_max_freq_scale); scale = div64_u64(scale >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, - const_cnt - prev_const_cnt); + delta_const_cnt); scale = min_t(unsigned long, scale, SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); this_cpu_write(arch_freq_scale, (unsigned long)scale); } +/* + * Discard samples older than the define maximum sample age of 20ms. There + * is no point in sending IPIs in such a case. If the scheduler tick was + * not running then the CPU is either idle or isolated. + */ +#define MAX_SAMPLE_AGE ((unsigned long)HZ / 50) + +unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu) +{ + struct amu_counters *cpu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_samples, cpu); + u64 delta_const_cnt, delta_core_cnt; + unsigned int seq, freq; + unsigned long last; + + if (!freq_counters_valid(cpu)) + goto fallback; + + do { + seq = raw_read_seqcount_begin(&cpu_sample->seq); + last = cpu_sample->last_update; + delta_core_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_core_cnt; + delta_const_cnt = cpu_sample->delta_const_cnt; + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&cpu_sample->seq, seq)); + + /* + * Bail on invalid count and when the last update was too long ago, + * which covers idle and NOHZ full CPUs. + */ + if (!delta_const_cnt || ((jiffies - last) > MAX_SAMPLE_AGE)) { + if (!(housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) && idle_cpu(cpu))) + goto fallback; + } + + /* + * CPU frequency = reference perf (in Hz) * (/\ delivered) / (/\ reference) + * AMU reference performance counter increment rate is equal to the rate + * of increment of the System counter, CNTPCT_EL0 and can be used to + * compute the CPU frequency. + */ + return div64_u64((delta_core_cnt * (arch_timer_get_rate() / HZ)), + delta_const_cnt); + +fallback: + freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpu); + return freq ? freq : cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(cpu); +} + static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = { .source = SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_ARCH, .set_freq_scale = amu_scale_freq_tick,
AMU counters are used by the Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) to estimate the CPU utilization during each tick. The delta of the AMU counters between two ticks can also be used to estimate the average CPU frequency of each core over the tick duration. Measure the AMU counters during tick, compute the delta and store it. When the frequency of the core is queried, use the stored delta to determine the frequency. arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is used on x86 systems to estimate the frequency of each CPU. It can be wired up on arm64 for the same functionality. Signed-off-by: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@os.amperecomputing.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)