Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1289978 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/2] combine remote cpu msr access

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/2] combine remote cpu msr access Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-11 23:50 +0100
    [PATCH 2/2] powercap/rapl: reduce ipi calls Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-11 23:50 +0100
    [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-11 23:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-20 14:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-12-20 16:30 +0100

#1289978 — [PATCH 0/2] combine remote cpu msr access

IPI calls to access MSRs on remote CPUs are expensive. So add a lib call
for read/modify/write access and use it in Intel RAPL driver.

Jacob Pan (2):
  x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function
  powercap/rapl: reduce ipi calls

 arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h    | 24 +++++++++++++++
 arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c        | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 3 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1289980 — [PATCH 2/2] powercap/rapl: reduce ipi calls

Reduce remote CPU calls for MSR access by combining read
modify write into one function.

Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
index cc97f08..4fe1627 100644
--- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
+++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
@@ -805,30 +805,18 @@ static int rapl_write_data_raw(struct rapl_domain *rd,
 			enum rapl_primitives prim,
 			unsigned long long value)
 {
-	u64 msr_val;
-	u32 msr;
 	struct rapl_primitive_info *rp = &rpi[prim];
 	int cpu;
+	u64 bits;
 
 	cpu = find_active_cpu_on_package(rd->package_id);
 	if (cpu < 0)
 		return cpu;
-	msr = rd->msrs[rp->id];
-	if (rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpu, msr, &msr_val)) {
-		dev_dbg(&rd->power_zone.dev,
-			"failed to read msr 0x%x on cpu %d\n", msr, cpu);
-		return -EIO;
-	}
-	value = rapl_unit_xlate(rd, rd->package_id, rp->unit, value, 1);
-	msr_val &= ~rp->mask;
-	msr_val |= value << rp->shift;
-	if (wrmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpu, msr, msr_val)) {
-		dev_dbg(&rd->power_zone.dev,
-			"failed to write msr 0x%x on cpu %d\n", msr, cpu);
-		return -EIO;
-	}
 
-	return 0;
+	bits = rapl_unit_xlate(rd, rd->package_id, rp->unit, value, 1);
+	bits |= bits << rp->shift;
+
+	return rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpu, rd->msrs[rp->id], rp->mask, bits);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -893,6 +881,21 @@ static int rapl_check_unit_atom(struct rapl_package *rp, int cpu)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void power_limit_irq_save_cpu(void *info)
+{
+	u32 l, h = 0;
+	struct rapl_package *rp = (struct rapl_package *)info;
+
+	/* save the state of PLN irq mask bit before disabling it */
+	rdmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, &l, &h);
+	if (!(rp->power_limit_irq & PACKAGE_PLN_INT_SAVED)) {
+		rp->power_limit_irq = l & PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
+		rp->power_limit_irq |= PACKAGE_PLN_INT_SAVED;
+	}
+	l &= ~PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
+	wrmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, l, h);
+}
+
 
 /* REVISIT:
  * When package power limit is set artificially low by RAPL, LVT
@@ -906,7 +909,6 @@ static int rapl_check_unit_atom(struct rapl_package *rp, int cpu)
 
 static void package_power_limit_irq_save(int package_id)
 {
-	u32 l, h = 0;
 	int cpu;
 	struct rapl_package *rp;
 
@@ -920,20 +922,27 @@ static void package_power_limit_irq_save(int package_id)
 	cpu = find_active_cpu_on_package(package_id);
 	if (cpu < 0)
 		return;
-	/* save the state of PLN irq mask bit before disabling it */
-	rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, &l, &h);
-	if (!(rp->power_limit_irq & PACKAGE_PLN_INT_SAVED)) {
-		rp->power_limit_irq = l & PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
-		rp->power_limit_irq |= PACKAGE_PLN_INT_SAVED;
-	}
-	l &= ~PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
-	wrmsr_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, l, h);
+	smp_call_function_single(cpu, power_limit_irq_save_cpu, rp, 1);
+}
+
+static void power_limit_irq_restore_cpu(void *info)
+{
+	u32 l, h = 0;
+	struct rapl_package *rp = (struct rapl_package *)info;
+
+	rdmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, &l, &h);
+
+	if (rp->power_limit_irq & PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE)
+		l |= PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
+	else
+		l &= ~PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
+
+	wrmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, l, h);
 }
 
 /* restore per package power limit interrupt enable state */
 static void package_power_limit_irq_restore(int package_id)
 {
-	u32 l, h;
 	int cpu;
 	struct rapl_package *rp;
 
@@ -951,14 +960,8 @@ static void package_power_limit_irq_restore(int package_id)
 	/* irq enable state not saved, nothing to restore */
 	if (!(rp->power_limit_irq & PACKAGE_PLN_INT_SAVED))
 		return;
-	rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, &l, &h);
-
-	if (rp->power_limit_irq & PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE)
-		l |= PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
-	else
-		l &= ~PACKAGE_THERM_INT_PLN_ENABLE;
 
-	wrmsr_on_cpu(cpu, MSR_IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_INTERRUPT, l, h);
+	smp_call_function_single(cpu, power_limit_irq_restore_cpu, rp, 1);
 }
 
 static void set_floor_freq_default(struct rapl_domain *rd, bool mode)
-- 
1.9.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1289981 — [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function

Remote CPU read/modify/write is often needed but currently without
a lib call. This patch adds an API to perform on CPU safe read/modify/write
so that callers don't have to invent such function.

Based on initial code from:
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

Suggested-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c     | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
index 77d8b28..6143a47 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
@@ -27,6 +27,13 @@ struct msr_info {
 	int err;
 };
 
+struct msr_action {
+	u32 msr_no;
+	u64 mask;
+	u64 bits;
+	int err;
+};
+
 struct msr_regs_info {
 	u32 *regs;
 	int err;
@@ -258,6 +265,7 @@ int rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 *q);
 int wrmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 q);
 int rdmsr_safe_regs_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 regs[8]);
 int wrmsr_safe_regs_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 regs[8]);
+int rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 mask, u64 bits);
 #else  /*  CONFIG_SMP  */
 static inline int rdmsr_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u32 *l, u32 *h)
 {
@@ -314,6 +322,22 @@ static inline int wrmsr_safe_regs_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 regs[8])
 {
 	return wrmsr_safe_regs(regs);
 }
+static inline int rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 mask, u64 bits)
+{
+	int err;
+	u64 val;
+
+	err = rdmsrl_safe(msr_no, &val);
+	if (err)
+		goto out;
+
+	val &= ~mask;
+	val |= bits;
+
+	err = wrmsrl_safe(msr_no, val);
+out:
+	return err;
+}
 #endif  /* CONFIG_SMP */
 #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
 #endif /* _ASM_X86_MSR_H */
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c b/arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c
index 518532e..60ed278 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c
@@ -221,6 +221,53 @@ int rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 *q)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu);
 
+
+static void __rmwmsrl_safe(void *info)
+{
+	int err;
+	struct msr_action *ma = info;
+	u64 val;
+
+	err = rdmsrl_safe(ma->msr_no, &val);
+	if (err)
+		goto out;
+
+	val &= ~ma->mask;
+	val |= ma->bits;
+
+	err = wrmsrl_safe(ma->msr_no, val);
+
+out:
+	ma->err = err;
+}
+
+/**
+ * rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu: Perform a read/modify/write msr transaction on cpu
+ *
+ * @cpu:  target cpu
+ * @msr:  msr number
+ * @mask: bitmask to change
+ * @bits: bits value for the mask
+ *
+ * Returns zero for success, a negative number on error.
+ */
+int rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr, u64 mask, u64 bits)
+{
+	int err;
+	struct msr_action ma;
+
+	memset(&ma, 0, sizeof(ma));
+
+	ma.msr_no = msr;
+	ma.mask = mask;
+	ma.bits = bits;
+
+	err = smp_call_function_single(cpu, __rmwmsrl_safe, &ma, 1);
+
+	return err ? err : ma.err;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu);
+
 /*
  * These variants are significantly slower, but allows control over
  * the entire 32-bit GPR set.
-- 
1.9.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1295598 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function

Jacob,

On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Jacob Pan wrote:
> +static inline int rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 msr_no, u64 mask, u64 bits)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	u64 val;
> +
> +	err = rdmsrl_safe(msr_no, &val);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	val &= ~mask;
> +	val |= bits;
> +
> +	err = wrmsrl_safe(msr_no, val);
> +out:
> +	return err;
> +}

....

> +static void __rmwmsrl_safe(void *info)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	struct msr_action *ma = info;
> +	u64 val;
> +
> +	err = rdmsrl_safe(ma->msr_no, &val);
> +	if (err)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	val &= ~ma->mask;
> +	val |= ma->bits;
> +
> +	err = wrmsrl_safe(ma->msr_no, val);
> +
> +out:
> +	ma->err = err;

So this is a copy of the above !SMP inline. What's wrong with providing:

 int rmwmsrl_safe(msr_no, clear_mask, set_mask)

in x86/lib/msr.c and make the !SMP variant of rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu() and that
variant for the SMP case a simple wrapper around it?

static void remote_rmwmsrl_safe(void *info)
{
	struct msr_action *ma = info;

	return rmwmsrl_safe(ma->msr, ma->clear_mask, ma->set_mask);
}

No gotos, no pointless code duplication. Just simple.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1295613 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/msr: add on cpu read/modify/write function

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 02:28:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So this is a copy of the above !SMP inline. What's wrong with providing:
> 
>  int rmwmsrl_safe(msr_no, clear_mask, set_mask)
> 
> in x86/lib/msr.c and make the !SMP variant of rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu() and that
> variant for the SMP case a simple wrapper around it?
> 
> static void remote_rmwmsrl_safe(void *info)
> {
> 	struct msr_action *ma = info;
> 
> 	return rmwmsrl_safe(ma->msr, ma->clear_mask, ma->set_mask);
> }
> 
> No gotos, no pointless code duplication. Just simple.

TBH, I find this new "rmwmsrl" interface (the name is unreadable, btw)
silly:

It provides a plain read-modify-write on a MSR and nothing more but
patch 2 immediately shows that this interface is insufficient for the
other cases, i.e. package_power_limit_irq_save() for example, where you
need to do something more like check bits or error handling.

So there we do smp_call_function_single() with a function which does the
MSR accesses and whatever else is needed.

So why add the former interface in the first place?

Having driver-specific functions do whatever it is required and then
using a single IPI to run them is much cleaner than adding that
unfortunate function which doesn't really suffice.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web