On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:28 PM Ghannam, Yazen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:34 AM > > To: Natarajan, Janakarajan <[email protected]> > > Cc: Natarajan, Janakarajan <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Rafael J . Wysocki > > <[email protected]>; Len Brown <[email protected]>; Viresh Kumar > > <[email protected]>; Robert Moore <[email protected]>; Erik > > Schmauss <[email protected]>; Ghannam, Yazen > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] CPPC optional registers AMD support > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:35 AM Janakarajan Natarajan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 4/4/19 4:25 PM, Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote: > > > > CPPC (Collaborative Processor Performance Control) offers optional > > > > registers which can be used to tune the system based on energy and/or > > > > performance requirements. > > > > > > > > Newer AMD processors add support for a subset of these optional CPPC > > > > registers, based on ACPI v6.1. > > > > > > > > The following are the supported CPPC registers for which sysfs entries > > > > are created: > > > > * enable (NEW) > > > > * max_perf (NEW) > > > > * min_perf (NEW) > > > > * energy_perf > > > > * lowest_perf > > > > * nominal_perf > > > > * desired_perf (NEW) > > > > * feedback_ctrs > > > > * auto_sel_enable (NEW) > > > > * lowest_nonlinear_perf > > > > > > > > The CPPC driver is updated to enable the OSPM and the userspace to > > > > access > > > > the newly supported registers. > > > > > > > > The purpose of exposing the registers via the sysfs entries is to allow > > > > the userspace to: > > > > * Tweak the values to fit its workload. > > > > * Apply a profile from AMD's optimization guides. > > > > > > > > Profiles will be documented in the performance/optimization guides. > > > > > > > > Note: > > > > * AMD systems will not have a policy applied in the kernel at this time. > > > > * By default, acpi_cpufreq will still be used. > > > > > > > > TODO: > > > > * Create a linux userspace tool that will help users generate a CPPC > > > > * profile > > > > for their target workload. > > > > * Create or update a driver to apply a general CPPC policy in the > > > > * kernel. > > > > > > > > v1->v2: > > > > * Add macro to ensure BUFFER only registers have BUFFER type. > > > > * Add support macro to make the right check based on register type. > > > > * Remove support checks for registers which are mandatory. > > > > > > > > > Are there any concerns regarding this patchset? > > > > Yes, there are. > > > > Unfortunately, it is generally problematic. > > > > First off, the behavior of existing sysfs files cannot be changed at > > will, as there may be users of them out there already depending on the > > current behavior. > > > > The intent is to add new sysfs files without changing the existing files. Is > that okay? > > Or is the addition of new files also not acceptable? > > > Second, at least some CPPC control registers are used by cpufreq > > drivers (cppc_cpufreq and intel_pstate), so modifying them behind the > > drivers' backs is not a good idea in general. For this reason, adding > > new sysfs attributes to allow user space to do that is quite > > questionable. > > > > Yes, good point. > > What if a check is added so that writes only succeed if the CPUFREQ governor > is set to userspace?
That wouldn't be particularly straightforward IMO. What about handling this like the others do, through a proper cpufreq driver?
