--- /dev/null
+From 99387b016022c29234c4ebf9abd34358c6e56532 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 22:24:10 +0100
+Subject: ACPI: processor: perflib: Avoid updating frequency QoS unnecessarily
+
+From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+
+commit 99387b016022c29234c4ebf9abd34358c6e56532 upstream.
+
+Modify acpi_processor_get_platform_limit() to avoid updating its
+frequency QoS request when the _PPC return value has not changed
+by comparing that value to the previous _PPC return value stored in
+the performance_platform_limit field of the struct acpi_processor
+corresponding to the given CPU.
+
+While at it, do the _PPC return value check against the state count
+earlier, to avoid setting performance_platform_limit to an invalid
+value, and make acpi_processor_ppc_init() use FREQ_QOS_MAX_DEFAULT_VALUE
+as the "no limit" frequency QoS for consistency.
+
+Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Tested-by: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.de>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
+ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
++++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+@@ -79,13 +79,16 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_platform_l
+
+ index = ppc;
+
++ if (pr->performance_platform_limit == index ||
++ ppc >= pr->performance->state_count)
++ return 0;
++
+ pr_debug("CPU %d: _PPC is %d - frequency %s limited\n", pr->id,
+ index, index ? "is" : "is not");
+
+ pr->performance_platform_limit = index;
+
+- if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count ||
+- unlikely(!freq_qos_request_active(&pr->perflib_req)))
++ if (unlikely(!freq_qos_request_active(&pr->perflib_req)))
+ return 0;
+
+ /*
+@@ -180,9 +183,16 @@ void acpi_processor_ppc_init(struct cpuf
+ if (!pr)
+ continue;
+
++ /*
++ * Reset performance_platform_limit in case there is a stale
++ * value in it, so as to make it match the "no limit" QoS value
++ * below.
++ */
++ pr->performance_platform_limit = 0;
++
+ ret = freq_qos_add_request(&policy->constraints,
+- &pr->perflib_req,
+- FREQ_QOS_MAX, INT_MAX);
++ &pr->perflib_req, FREQ_QOS_MAX,
++ FREQ_QOS_MAX_DEFAULT_VALUE);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ pr_err("Failed to add freq constraint for CPU%d (%d)\n",
+ cpu, ret);
--- /dev/null
+From c02d5feb6e2f60affc6ba8606d8d614c071e2ba6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 22:21:49 +0100
+Subject: ACPI: processor: perflib: Use the "no limit" frequency QoS
+
+From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+
+commit c02d5feb6e2f60affc6ba8606d8d614c071e2ba6 upstream.
+
+When _PPC returns 0, it means that the CPU frequency is not limited by
+the platform firmware, so make acpi_processor_get_platform_limit()
+update the frequency QoS request used by it to "no limit" in that case.
+
+This addresses a problem with limiting CPU frequency artificially on
+some systems after CPU offline/online to the frequency that corresponds
+to the first entry in the _PSS return package.
+
+Reported-by: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>
+Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>
+Tested-by: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>
+Tested-by: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.de>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
+ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
++++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_platform_l
+ {
+ acpi_status status = 0;
+ unsigned long long ppc = 0;
++ s32 qos_value;
++ int index;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!pr)
+@@ -75,17 +77,27 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_platform_l
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
++ index = ppc;
++
+ pr_debug("CPU %d: _PPC is %d - frequency %s limited\n", pr->id,
+- (int)ppc, ppc ? "" : "not");
++ index, index ? "is" : "is not");
+
+- pr->performance_platform_limit = (int)ppc;
++ pr->performance_platform_limit = index;
+
+ if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count ||
+ unlikely(!freq_qos_request_active(&pr->perflib_req)))
+ return 0;
+
+- ret = freq_qos_update_request(&pr->perflib_req,
+- pr->performance->states[ppc].core_frequency * 1000);
++ /*
++ * If _PPC returns 0, it means that all of the available states can be
++ * used ("no limit").
++ */
++ if (index == 0)
++ qos_value = FREQ_QOS_MAX_DEFAULT_VALUE;
++ else
++ qos_value = pr->performance->states[index].core_frequency * 1000;
++
++ ret = freq_qos_update_request(&pr->perflib_req, qos_value);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ pr_warn("Failed to update perflib freq constraint: CPU%d (%d)\n",
+ pr->id, ret);
--- /dev/null
+From e8a0e30b742f76ebd0f3b196973df4bf65d8fbbb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 22:26:04 +0100
+Subject: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop ACPI _PSS states table patching
+
+From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+
+commit e8a0e30b742f76ebd0f3b196973df4bf65d8fbbb upstream.
+
+After making acpi_processor_get_platform_limit() use the "no limit"
+value for its frequency QoS request when _PPC returns 0, it is not
+necessary to replace the frequency corresponding to the first _PSS
+return package entry with the maximum turbo frequency of the given
+CPU in intel_pstate_init_acpi_perf_limits() any more, so drop the
+code doing that along with the comment explaining it.
+
+Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
+Tested-by: Hagar Hemdan <hagarhem@amazon.de>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 14 --------------
+ 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
++++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+@@ -442,20 +442,6 @@ static void intel_pstate_init_acpi_perf_
+ (u32) cpu->acpi_perf_data.states[i].control);
+ }
+
+- /*
+- * The _PSS table doesn't contain whole turbo frequency range.
+- * This just contains +1 MHZ above the max non turbo frequency,
+- * with control value corresponding to max turbo ratio. But
+- * when cpufreq set policy is called, it will call with this
+- * max frequency, which will cause a reduced performance as
+- * this driver uses real max turbo frequency as the max
+- * frequency. So correct this frequency in _PSS table to
+- * correct max turbo frequency based on the turbo state.
+- * Also need to convert to MHz as _PSS freq is in MHz.
+- */
+- if (!global.turbo_disabled)
+- cpu->acpi_perf_data.states[0].core_frequency =
+- policy->cpuinfo.max_freq / 1000;
+ cpu->valid_pss_table = true;
+ pr_debug("_PPC limits will be enforced\n");
+
s390-dasd-fix-hanging-device-after-quiesce-resume.patch
asoc-wm8904-fill-the-cache-for-wm8904_adc_test_0-register.patch
dm-cache-policy-smq-ensure-io-doesn-t-prevent-cleaner-policy-progress.patch
+acpi-processor-perflib-use-the-no-limit-frequency-qos.patch
+acpi-processor-perflib-avoid-updating-frequency-qos-unnecessarily.patch
+cpufreq-intel_pstate-drop-acpi-_pss-states-table-patching.patch
projects / thirdparty / kernel / stable-queue.git / commitdiff
