Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: topology: read CPPC FFH feedback counters in one operation
Beata Michalska <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:35:48 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.acpica-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 01:11:13AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > Hi, > > On 7/8/26 3:28 AM, Pengjie Zhang wrote: > > arm64 implements CPPC FFH feedback-counter reads using AMU counters. > > Because those counters must be sampled on the target CPU, reading the > > delivered and reference counters separately widens the observation window > > between them. > > > > Implement the paired FFH feedback-counter read hook on arm64 and sample > > both AMU counters together before decoding the requested CPC register > > values. > > > > Also factor the FFH bitfield extraction logic into a helper and reuse > > it from the existing single-counter FFH read path. > > > > Tested-by: Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> > > Tested-by: Vanshidhar Konda <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Vanshidhar Konda <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Pengjie Zhang <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > index b32f13358fbb..d28438f8b83f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > @@ -373,6 +373,16 @@ core_initcall(init_amu_fie); > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > #include <acpi/cppc_acpi.h> > > +struct amu_ffh_ctrs { > > + u64 corecnt; > > + u64 constcnt; > > +}; > > + > > +enum cpc_ffh_ctr_id { > > + CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE = 0x0, > > + CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST = 0x1, > > +}; > > + > > static void cpu_read_corecnt(void *val) > > { > > /* > > @@ -397,7 +407,7 @@ static void cpu_read_constcnt(void *val) > > } > > static inline > > -int counters_read_on_cpu(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, u64 *val) > > +int counters_read_on_cpu(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *val) > > { > > /* > > * Abort call on counterless CPU. > > @@ -447,24 +457,90 @@ bool cpc_ffh_supported(void) > > return true; > > } > > +static void amu_read_core_const_ctrs(void *val) > > +{ > > + struct amu_ffh_ctrs *ctrs = val; > > + > > + /* > > + * cpu_read_constcnt() incurs slight latency due to the > > + * ARM64_WORKAROUND_2457168 check. Read it first to minimize > > + * the sampling skew between the const and core counters. > > + */ > > + cpu_read_constcnt(&ctrs->constcnt); > > + cpu_read_corecnt(&ctrs->corecnt); > > +} > > + > > +static u64 cpc_ffh_extract_bits(const struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val) > > +{ > > + val &= GENMASK_ULL(reg->bit_offset + reg->bit_width - 1, > > + reg->bit_offset); > > + val >>= reg->bit_offset; > > + > > + return val; > > +} > > + > > +static void cpc_ffh_ctr_value(const struct cpc_reg *reg, > > + const struct amu_ffh_ctrs *ctrs, u64 *val) > > +{ > > + switch ((u64)reg->address) { > > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE: > > + *val = ctrs->corecnt; > > + break; > > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST: > > + *val = ctrs->constcnt; > > + break; > > + } > > + > > + *val = cpc_ffh_extract_bits(reg, *val); > > +} > > + > > +static bool is_amu_ctr_reg(const struct cpc_reg *reg) > > +{ > > + return reg->address == CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE || > > + reg->address == CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST; > > +} > > + > > +int cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg1, u64 *val1, > > + struct cpc_reg *reg2, u64 *val2) > > +{ > > + struct amu_ffh_ctrs ctrs; > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (!is_amu_ctr_reg(reg1) || !is_amu_ctr_reg(reg2)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, amu_read_core_const_ctrs, &ctrs); > > + if (ret) { > > + /* > > + * If AMU is unsupported (-EOPNOTSUPP), translate the error > > + * to -ENODEV. This explicitly tells the generic CPPC layer > > + * to abort immediately and avoid falling back to pointless > > + * single-counter reads. > > + */ > > + return ret == -EOPNOTSUPP ? -ENODEV : ret; > > + } > > + > > + cpc_ffh_ctr_value(reg1, &ctrs, val1); > > + cpc_ffh_ctr_value(reg2, &ctrs, val2); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > int cpc_read_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 *val) > > { > > int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > switch ((u64)reg->address) { > > - case 0x0: > > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CORE: > > ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_corecnt, val); > > break; > > - case 0x1: > > + case CPC_FFH_CTR_CONST: > > ret = counters_read_on_cpu(cpu, cpu_read_constcnt, val); > > break; > > } > > - if (!ret) { > > - *val &= GENMASK_ULL(reg->bit_offset + reg->bit_width - 1, > > - reg->bit_offset); > > - *val >>= reg->bit_offset; > > - } > > + if (!ret) > > + *val = cpc_ffh_extract_bits(reg, *val); > > return ret; > > } > > > So, more a nitpik that only applies if this set gets respun, but: > > I don't think this FFH counter logic belongs in the arm64 topology.c file, > its not really topology related. I agree. Those bits should be moved. That said, I think it would be best to land this first, as it addresses a rather long-standing issue. We can do the cleanup later. If needed, I'd pick it up soon'ish. --- BR Beata > > > > >