[PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for AArch64 AMUv1-based arch_freq_get_on_cpu
Vanshidhar Konda
vanshikonda at os.amperecomputing.com
Mon Mar 25 09:10:26 PDT 2024
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:34:28AM +0000, Beata Michalska wrote:
>Introducing arm64 specific version of arch_freq_get_on_cpu, cashing on
>existing implementation for FIE and AMUv1 support: the frequency scale
>factor, updated on each sched tick, serves as a base for retrieving
>the frequency for a given CPU, representing an average frequency
>reported between the ticks - thus its accuracy is limited.
>
>The changes have been rather lightly (due to some limitations) tested on
>an FVP model.
>
I tested these changes on an Ampere system. The results from reading
scaling_cur_freq look reasonable in the majority of cases I tested. I
only saw some unexpected behavior with cores that were configured for
no_hz full.
I observed the unexplained behavior when I tested as follows:
1. Run stress on all cores
stress-ng --cpu 186 --timeout 10m --metrics-brief
2. Observe scaling_cur_freq and cpuinfo_cur_freq for all cores
scaling_cur_freq values were within a few % of cpuinfo_cur_freq
3. Kill stress test
4. Observe scaling_cur_freq and cpuinfo_cur_freq for all cores
scaling_cur_freq values were within a few % of cpuinfo_cur_freq for
most cores except the ones configured with no_hz full.
no_hz full = 122-127
core scaling_cur_freq cpuinfo_cur_freq
[122]: 2997070 1000000
[123]: 2997070 1000000
[124]: 3000038 1000000
[125]: 2997070 1000000
[126]: 2997070 1000000
[127]: 2997070 1000000
These values were reflected for multiple seconds. I suspect the cores
entered WFI and there was no update to the scale while those cores were
idle.
Thanks,
Vanshi
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list