[PATCH] ACPI: RISC-V: CPPC: Implement cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs()

[Yicong Yang]

On 9/7/26 7:29 PM, Jie Zhan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/2/2026 4:34 PM, Yufan Dou wrote:
>> On RISC-V, each cpc_read_ffh() for a CSR-type FFH register sends a
>> separate IPI to the target hart via smp_call_function_single().
>> cppc_get_perf_ctrs() therefore samples the delivered and reference
>> counters in two separate IPIs, at two different instants. The skew
>> between the two sampling points distorts the delivered/reference
>> ratio and thus the frequency reported by cpufreq.
>>
>> Implement the cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs() hook to read both CSR counters
>> back-to-back in a single IPI, which narrows the sampling window to a
>> few instructions and halves the number of cross-CPU calls. This
>> improves the accuracy of the reported frequency in the same way as
>> the arm64 implementation of the hook, which reads both AMU counters
>> in a single counters_read_on_cpu() call.
>>
>> SBI-type FFH registers still fall back to individual reads, since
>> pairing them would not reduce the number of SBI calls on the target
>> hart.
>>
>> Testing was performed while CPU1 was kept busy with:
>>
>>   # stress-ng --cpu 1 --taskset 1
>>
>> On a CPU with cpuinfo_max_freq of 3000000 kHz:
>>
>> Before:
>>
>>   Maximum observed cpuinfo_cur_freq: 3201369 kHz
>>   Maximum observed error:            +201369 kHz (+6.71%)
>>
>> After:
>>
>>   Maximum observed cpuinfo_cur_freq: 3009646 kHz
>>   Maximum observed error:              +9646 kHz (+0.32%)
>>
>> The maximum observed error is reduced by 95.2%.
> Glad to see that works for RISC-V as well.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yufan Dou <douyufan at picoheart.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>> index 42c1a9052470..2ca98fa69e9a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>> @@ -85,6 +85,20 @@ static void cppc_ffh_csr_write(void *write_data)
>>  	data->ret.error = -EINVAL;
>>  }
>>  
>> +struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data {
>> +	struct sbi_cppc_data first;
>> +	struct sbi_cppc_data second;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void cppc_ffh_csr_read_fb_ctrs(void *read_data)
>> +{
>> +	struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data *data = read_data;
>> +
>> +	cppc_ffh_csr_read(&data->first);
>> +	if (!data->first.ret.error)
>> +		cppc_ffh_csr_read(&data->second);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Refer to drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c for the description of the functions
>>   * below.
>> @@ -125,6 +139,39 @@ int cpc_read_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 *val)
>>  	return -EINVAL;
>>  }
>>  
>> +int cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg1, u64 *val1,
>> +			 struct cpc_reg *reg2, u64 *val2)
>> +{
>> +	struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data data;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled()))
>> +		return -EPERM;
> AFAICS, this may cause CPPC FIE to constantly fail to read counters because
> FIE runs in hardirq context.

I suppose it's mainly due to the smp_call_function_single() cannot work
with irqs_disabled().

seems we need to do the similar handling like arm64's
counters_read_on_cpu() - read the counters locally when irqs_disabled()
if local cpu is the target cpu.

so is cpc_read_ffh() of riscv. but I suppose this should be a fix of below
commit, as it were in the kthread for FIE...
997c021abc6e ("cpufreq: CPPC: Update FIE arch_freq_scale in ticks for non-PCC regs")

> 
> Any test on CPPC FIE?
>> +
>> +	/* Only CSR counters can be paired within a single IPI. */
>> +	if (FFH_CPPC_TYPE(reg1->address) != FFH_CPPC_CSR ||
>> +	    FFH_CPPC_TYPE(reg2->address) != FFH_CPPC_CSR)
>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> +	data.first.reg = FFH_CPPC_CSR_NUM(reg1->address);
>> +	data.second.reg = FFH_CPPC_CSR_NUM(reg2->address);
>> +
>> +	ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, cppc_ffh_csr_read_fb_ctrs,
>> +				       &data, 1);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	if (data.first.ret.error)
>> +		return data.first.ret.error;
>> +	if (data.second.ret.error)
>> +		return data.second.ret.error;
>> +
>> +	*val1 = data.first.ret.value;
>> +	*val2 = data.second.ret.value;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  int cpc_write_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val)
>>  {
>>  	struct sbi_cppc_data data;
>>
>> base-commit: 89a312991dc6e638a36adc43ccb91dbc25504c04