On 14 Aug 2025, at 14:37, Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:49 AM yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anup,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:48 PM Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 9:08 AM yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Anup,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 7:12 PM Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:14 PM yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sunil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 1:28 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Yunhui,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:23:39AM +0800, yunhui cui wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Sunil,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:06 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of cppc_ffh_csr_read() is to calculate the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency of the CPU, which is delta_CSR_CYCLE/delta_CSR_XXX.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CSR_XXX should be a reference clock and does not count during WFI
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Wait For Interrupt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Similar solutions include: x86's aperf/mperf, and ARM64's AMU with
>>>>>>>>>>>> registers SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CORE_EL0/SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CONST_EL0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we know that CSR_TIME in the current code does count during
>>>>>>>>>>>> WFI. So, is this design unreasonable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we consider proposing an extension to support such a dedicated
>>>>>>>>>>>> counter (a reference clock that does not count during WFI)? This way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the value can be obtained directly in S-mode without trapping to
>>>>>>>>>>>> M-mode, especially since reading this counter is very frequent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Yunhui,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but we anticipated that vendors might define their own custom CSRs.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, we introduced FFH encoding to accommodate such cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As mentioned earlier, it is best to directly read CSR_XXX (a reference
>>>>>>>>>> clock that does not count during WFI) and CSR_CYCLE in S-mode, rather
>>>>>>>>>> than trapping to SBI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. I meant direct CSR access itself not SBI. Please take a look at
>>>>>>>>> Table 6 of RISC-V FFH spec.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c is a generic driver that is not specific to
>>>>>>>>>> any vendor. Currently, the upstream code already uses CSR_TIME, and
>>>>>>>>>> the logic of CSR_TIME is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ACPI spec for "Reference Performance Register" says,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Reference Performance Counter Register counts at a fixed rate any
>>>>>>> time the processor is active. It is not affected by changes to Desired
>>>>>>> Performance, processor throttling, etc."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CSR_TIME is just an example. It is upto the vendor how _CPC objects are
>>>>>>>>> encoded using FFH. The linux code doesn't mean one should use CSR_TIME
>>>>>>>>> always.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, the example of CSR_TIME is incorrect. What is needed is a
>>>>>>>> CSR_XXX (a reference clock that does not count during WFI).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, you mentioned that each vendor can customize their own
>>>>>>>> implementations. But should all vendors' CSR_XXX/YYY/... be added to
>>>>>>>> drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c? Shouldn’t drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c fall
>>>>>>>> under the scope defined by the RISC-V architecture?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. One can implement similar to csr_read_num() in opensbi. We didn't
>>>>>>> add it since there was no HW implementing such thing. What I am
>>>>>>> saying is we have FFH encoding to support such case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be best to promote a specification to support CSR_XXX, just
>>>>>>>>>> like what has been done for x86 and arm64. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't above work? For a standard extension, you may have to provide
>>>>>>>>> more data with actual HW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This won’t work. May I ask how the current upstream code can calculate
>>>>>>>> the actual CPU frequency using CSR_TIME without trapping to SBI?
>>>>>>>> This is a theoretical logical issue. Why is data needed here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned above, one can implement a generic CSR read without
>>>>>>> trapping to SBI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you take a look at the "AMU events and event numbers" chapter in
>>>>>>>> the ARM64 manual?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As-per ACPI spec reference performance counter is not affected by CPU
>>>>>>> state. The RISC-V FFH encoding is sufficiently generic to support this
>>>>>>> requirement, even if the standard CSR_TIME cannot be used. In such
>>>>>>> cases, an alternative CSR can be encodeded, accessed via an OS-level
>>>>>>> abstraction such as csr_read_num().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what you're saying is that we should submit a patch like this, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>>>>>> index 440cf9fb91aab..953c259d46c69 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
>>>>>> @@ -66,16 +66,8 @@ static void cppc_ffh_csr_read(void *read_data)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct sbi_cppc_data *data = (struct sbi_cppc_data *)read_data;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - switch (data->reg) {
>>>>>> - /* Support only TIME CSR for now */
>>>>>> - case CSR_TIME:
>>>>>> - data->ret.value = csr_read(CSR_TIME);
>>>>>> - data->ret.error = 0;
>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>> - default:
>>>>>> - data->ret.error = -EINVAL;
>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>> - }
>>>>>> + data->ret.value = csr_read_num(data->reg);
>>>>>> + data->ret.error = 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that's the case, the robustness of the code cannot be guaranteed,
>>>>>> because the range of CSRs from different vendors is unknown.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI FFH is allows mapping to any CSR.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, FFH can map any CSR, and this is not the point of contention.
>>>>
>>>> If that's the case, the CSR_TIME used in the current kernel code is
>>>> inappropriate. Some vendors may design a counter that does not count
>>>> during WFI, making CSR_TIME irrelevant. Even if counting continues
>>>> during WFI, are you planning to have one counter operate in S-mode
>>>> while the other traps to M-mode?
>>>>
>>>> In that case, the code would need to be modified as proposed above. Do
>>>> you agree?
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> Like Sunil already explained, if an implementation has reference counter
>>> which does not count during WFI state then for such implementation the
>>> delivered performance counter should also not increment during WFI
>>> to maintain the relative delta of increments. This means if an implementation
>>> uses TIME CSR as reference counter then for such implementation
>>> the delivered performance counter should increment accordingly. Ultimately,
>>> what matters is OS being able to correctly compute the performance level
>>> using reference and delivered performance counters.
>>
>>
>> For calculating the actual CPU frequency, both implementations are
>> acceptable where either both counters continue counting during WFI or
>> both stop counting.
>> In the current code, how do you read the other counter?
>> Shouldn't it be modified like this to support it? This way, all
>> counters can be read directly in S-mode without trapping to M-mode:
>> + data->ret.value = csr_read_num(data->reg);
>> + data->ret.error = 0;
>
> Yes, the current switch-case needs to replaced by common
> csr_read_num() and csr_write_num() implemented in arch/riscv/
>
> The RISC-V CSR space is limited so with it is straightforward
> to implement csr_read_num() and csr_write_num() using
> macros where each CSR access will turn-out to be roughly
> 3-4 instructions.
12 bits, or 4096 CSRs. Are you saying you want to have a jump table
that dispatches to one of 4096 entry points?
Maybe you can cut that down a bit for S-mode based on the encoding
convention, but that only eliminates 1/4, so you’re still looking at
3072 entry points, perhaps also minus the few that are allocated and
clearly not sensible things to use for this, like stval.
But I think that’s not a reasonable approach to take, and if there is
no CSR in the current RISC-V spec that fits the needs of ACPI then one
needs to be defined so that we don’t need every vendor to invent their
own. If there is a CSR already then that should be the only one that’s
allowed to be used here. If you look at arm64, it hard-codes which
counter to use for each of the two calls it supports. That’s a much
better world to be in.
Jessica
