On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:59 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.c...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On some problematic platforms, the _PPC notifier is
> > only delivered to one CPU, which might cause information
> > inconsistent between CPUs within the package. Thus introduce a boot up
> > parameter to broadcast this _PPC notifier onto all
> > online CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.c...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> > b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> > index a303fd0e108c..737dbf5aa7f7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ module_param(ignore_ppc, int, 0644);
> > MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_ppc, "If the frequency of your machine gets
> > wrongly" \
> > "limited by BIOS, this should help");
> >
> > +static int broadcast_ppc;
> > +module_param(broadcast_ppc, int, 0644);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(broadcast_ppc, "Broadcast the ppc to all online CPUs");
> > +
> > #define PPC_REGISTERED 1
> > #define PPC_IN_USE 2
> >
> > @@ -180,8 +184,16 @@ void acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct
> > acpi_processor *pr, int event_flag)
> > else
> > acpi_processor_ppc_ost(pr->handle, 0);
> > }
> > - if (ret >= 0)
> > - cpufreq_update_policy(pr->id);
> > + if (ret >= 0) {
> > + if (broadcast_ppc) {
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > + cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
>
> This doesn't actually help AFAICS, because it only causes
> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() to be called for all policies, but
> pr->performance_platform_limit is re-computed for the target CPU only
> anyway, so the limit will only be applied to that one.
>
> What happens in the BZ is that invoking cpufreq_update_policy() for
> all CPUs causes ->verify() to run on all of them which triggers
> update_turbo_state() and cpuinfo.max_freq update, because
> global.turbo_disabled has changed.
>
> That is rather less than straightforward and intel_pstate really
> doesn't need any _PPC change notifications to notice that the
> MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TURBO_DISABLE bit has changed as it checks that
> bit on every P-state update.
Which admittedly may not be necessary if notifications are delivered.
I still don't think that updating all policies from
acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() is a good idea, but yes, there is a
problem that if MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TURBO_DISABLE goes from set to
unset, all policies need to be updated to update policy->max
accordingly, so looking at MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TURBO_DISABLE from
within the driver without triggering a policy update is not
sufficient.
