[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 14/15] xen/xenpm: Adapt cpu frequency monitor in xenpm


  • To: Penny Zheng <Penny.Zheng@xxxxxxx>, Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@xxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:26:09 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: ray.huang@xxxxxxx, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:26:21 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 06.03.2025 09:39, Penny Zheng wrote:
> Make `xenpm get-cpureq-para/set-cpufreq-para` available in CPPC mode.
> --- a/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_pm.c
> +++ b/tools/libs/ctrl/xc_pm.c
> @@ -214,13 +214,12 @@ int xc_get_cpufreq_para(xc_interface *xch, int cpuid,
>                        user_para->gov_num * CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN * sizeof(char), 
> XC_HYPERCALL_BUFFER_BOUNCE_BOTH);
>  
>      bool has_num = user_para->cpu_num &&
> -                     user_para->freq_num &&
>                       user_para->gov_num;
>  
>      if ( has_num )

Something looks wrong here already before your patch: With how has_num is set
and with this conditional, ...

>      {
>          if ( (!user_para->affected_cpus)                    ||
> -             (!user_para->scaling_available_frequencies)    ||
> +             (user_para->freq_num && 
> !user_para->scaling_available_frequencies)    ||
>               (user_para->gov_num && !user_para->scaling_available_governors) 
> )

... this ->gov_num check, ...

>          {
>              errno = EINVAL;
> @@ -228,14 +227,16 @@ int xc_get_cpufreq_para(xc_interface *xch, int cpuid,
>          }
>          if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, affected_cpus) )
>              goto unlock_1;
> -        if ( xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, scaling_available_frequencies) )
> +        if ( user_para->freq_num &&
> +             xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, scaling_available_frequencies) )
>              goto unlock_2;
>          if ( user_para->gov_num &&

... this one, and ...

>               xc_hypercall_bounce_pre(xch, scaling_available_governors) )
>              goto unlock_3;
>  
>          set_xen_guest_handle(sys_para->affected_cpus, affected_cpus);
> -        set_xen_guest_handle(sys_para->scaling_available_frequencies, 
> scaling_available_frequencies);
> +        if ( user_para->freq_num )
> +            set_xen_guest_handle(sys_para->scaling_available_frequencies, 
> scaling_available_frequencies);

(Nit: Yet another overly long line. It was too long already before, yes, but
 that's no excuse to make it even longer.  The more that there is better
 formatting right in context below.)

>          if ( user_para->gov_num )

... this one are all dead code. Jason? I expect the has_num variable simply
wants dropping altogether, thus correcting the earlier anomaly and getting
the intended new behavior at the same time.

>              set_xen_guest_handle(sys_para->scaling_available_governors,
>                                   scaling_available_governors);

This is the piece of context I'm referring to in the nit above.

> @@ -301,7 +302,8 @@ unlock_4:
>      if ( user_para->gov_num )
>          xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, scaling_available_governors);
>  unlock_3:
> -    xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, scaling_available_frequencies);
> +    if ( user_para->freq_num )
> +        xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, scaling_available_frequencies);
>  unlock_2:
>      xc_hypercall_bounce_post(xch, affected_cpus);
>  unlock_1:

I'm also puzzled by the function's inconsistent return value - Anthony,
can you explain / spot why things are the way they are?

> --- a/tools/misc/xenpm.c
> +++ b/tools/misc/xenpm.c
> @@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ static void signal_int_handler(int signo)
>                          res / 1000000UL, 100UL * res / (double)sum_px[i]);
>              }
>          }
> -        if ( px_cap && avgfreq[i] )
> +        if ( avgfreq[i] )
>              printf("  Avg freq\t%d\tKHz\n", avgfreq[i]);
>      }

I wonder whether this shouldn't be an independent change (which then
could go in rather sooner).

> @@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ static int show_cpufreq_para_by_cpuid(xc_interface 
> *xc_handle, int cpuid)
>              ret = -ENOMEM;
>              goto out;
>          }
> -        if (!(p_cpufreq->scaling_available_frequencies =
> +        if (p_cpufreq->freq_num &&
> +            !(p_cpufreq->scaling_available_frequencies =
>                malloc(p_cpufreq->freq_num * sizeof(uint32_t))))
>          {
>              fprintf(stderr,

Can someone explain to me how the pre-existing logic here works? All
three ->*_num start out as zero. Hence respective allocations (of zero
size) may conceivably return NULL (the behavior there is implementation
defined after all). Yet then we'd bail from the loop, and hence from the
function. IOW adding a ->freq_num check and also a ->cpu_num one (along
with the ->gov_num one that apparently was added during HWP development)
would once again look like an independent (latent) bugfix to me.

> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/pmstat.c
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op)
>      pmpt = processor_pminfo[op->cpuid];
>      policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_policy, op->cpuid);
>  
> -    if ( !pmpt || !pmpt->perf.states ||
> +    if ( !pmpt || ((pmpt->init & XEN_PX_INIT) && !pmpt->perf.states) ||
>           !policy || !policy->governor )
>          return -EINVAL;

Wouldn't this change better belong in the earlier patch, where the code
in context of the last hunk below was adjusted?

> @@ -229,17 +229,20 @@ static int get_cpufreq_para(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op)
>      if ( ret )
>          return ret;
>  
> -    if ( !(scaling_available_frequencies =
> -           xzalloc_array(uint32_t, op->u.get_para.freq_num)) )
> -        return -ENOMEM;
> -    for ( i = 0; i < op->u.get_para.freq_num; i++ )
> -        scaling_available_frequencies[i] =
> -                        pmpt->perf.states[i].core_frequency * 1000;
> -    ret = copy_to_guest(op->u.get_para.scaling_available_frequencies,
> -                   scaling_available_frequencies, op->u.get_para.freq_num);
> -    xfree(scaling_available_frequencies);
> -    if ( ret )
> -        return ret;
> +    if ( op->u.get_para.freq_num )
> +    {
> +        if ( !(scaling_available_frequencies =
> +               xzalloc_array(uint32_t, op->u.get_para.freq_num)) )
> +            return -ENOMEM;
> +        for ( i = 0; i < op->u.get_para.freq_num; i++ )
> +            scaling_available_frequencies[i] =
> +                            pmpt->perf.states[i].core_frequency * 1000;

Nit: Indentation was bogus here and ...

> +        ret = copy_to_guest(op->u.get_para.scaling_available_frequencies,
> +                    scaling_available_frequencies, op->u.get_para.freq_num);

... here before, and sadly continues to be bogus now.

> +        xfree(scaling_available_frequencies);
> +        if ( ret )
> +            return ret;
> +    }

While (beyond the nit above) I'm okay with this simple change, I think the
code here would benefit from folding the two allocations into one. There
simply is no reason to pay the price of the allocation overhead twice, when
we need a uint32_t[max(.cpu_num, .freq_num)] array anyway. That way the
churn introduced here would then also be smaller.

> @@ -465,7 +468,8 @@ int do_pm_op(struct xen_sysctl_pm_op *op)
>      switch ( op->cmd & PM_PARA_CATEGORY_MASK )
>      {
>      case CPUFREQ_PARA:
> -        if ( !(xen_processor_pmbits & XEN_PROCESSOR_PM_PX) )
> +        if ( !(xen_processor_pmbits & (XEN_PROCESSOR_PM_PX |
> +                                       XEN_PROCESSOR_PM_CPPC)) )
>              return -ENODEV;
>          if ( !pmpt || !(pmpt->init & (XEN_PX_INIT | XEN_CPPC_INIT)) )
>              return -EINVAL;

(This is the hunk I'm referring to further up.)

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.