| Message ID | 20240826211358.2694603-4-superm1@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | Mario Limonciello |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Adjustments for preferred core detection | expand |
[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only] > -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Limonciello <superm1@kernel.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 5:14 AM > To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>; Shenoy, Gautham Ranjal > <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>; Yuan, Perry <Perry.Yuan@amd.com> > Cc: maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT) <x86@kernel.org>; > Rafael J . Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>; open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT > AND 64-BIT) <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; open list:ACPI <linux- > acpi@vger.kernel.org>; open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK > <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>; Limonciello, Mario > <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>; Yuan, Perry <Perry.Yuan@amd.com> > Subject: [PATCH 3/8] ACPI: CPPC: Adjust debug messages in > amd_set_max_freq_ratio() to warn > > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > > If the boost ratio isn't calculated properly for the system for any reason this > can cause other problems that are non-obvious. > > Raise all messages to warn instead. > > Suggested-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c index > 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c > @@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) > > rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps); > if (rc) { > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); > return; > } > > rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf); > if (rc) > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); > nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; > > if (!nominal_perf) { > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); > return; > } > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) > /* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */ > perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1; > if (!perf_ratio) { > - pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 > ratio\n"); > + pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 > ratio\n"); > return; > } > > -- > 2.43.0 > LGTM, it is good to show the warning message once there are some perf values are invalid. That will help to debug the issue from customer report log. Reviewed-by: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com> Best Regards. Perry.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:13:53PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > > If the boost ratio isn't calculated properly for the system for any > reason this can cause other problems that are non-obvious. > > Raise all messages to warn instead. > > Suggested-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com> > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c > index 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c > @@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) > > rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps); > if (rc) { > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); > return; > } > > rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf); > if (rc) > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); > nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; > > if (!nominal_perf) { > - pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); > + pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); > return; > } > > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) > /* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */ > perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1; > if (!perf_ratio) { > - pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); > + pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); > return; Aside: perf_ratio is a u64, and SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is (1L << 10). Thus, is it even possible to have !perf_ratio? Otherwise, I am ok with this promotion of pr_debug to pr_warn. Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com> -- Thanks and Regards gautham.
On 8/27/2024 09:50, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:13:53PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: >> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> >> >> If the boost ratio isn't calculated properly for the system for any >> reason this can cause other problems that are non-obvious. >> >> Raise all messages to warn instead. >> >> Suggested-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com> >> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c >> index 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c >> @@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) >> >> rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps); >> if (rc) { >> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); >> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); >> return; >> } >> >> rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf); >> if (rc) >> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); >> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); >> nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; >> >> if (!nominal_perf) { >> - pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); >> + pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); >> return; >> } >> >> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) >> /* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */ >> perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1; >> if (!perf_ratio) { >> - pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); >> + pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); >> return; > > Aside: > perf_ratio is a u64, and SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is (1L << 10). Thus, is > it even possible to have !perf_ratio? > > Otherwise, I am ok with this promotion of pr_debug to pr_warn. You're right; I don't see this is possible. I'll tear it out in a prerequisite patch in v2. > > Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com> > > -- > Thanks and Regards > gautham.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c index 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c @@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps); if (rc) { - pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); + pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc); return; } rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf); if (rc) - pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); + pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n"); nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; if (!nominal_perf) { - pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); + pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n"); return; } @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) /* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */ perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1; if (!perf_ratio) { - pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); + pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n"); return; }