lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfd0a622-89bc-4303-a972-4b5c8380eb76@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:47:42 +0530
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>, peterz@...radead.org,
 mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
 mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
 tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 x86@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, gustavoars@...nel.org
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, ananth.narayan@....com,
 gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com,
 sandipan.das@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs

Hello Oleksandr,

On 6/10/2024 7:58 PM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On pondělí 10. června 2024 12:07:45, SELČ Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>> Currently the energy-cores event in the power PMU aggregates energy
>> consumption data at a package level. On the other hand the core energy
>> RAPL counter in AMD CPUs has a core scope (which means the energy 
>> consumption is recorded separately for each core). Earlier efforts to add
>> the core event in the power PMU had failed [1], due to the difference in 
>> the scope of these two events. Hence, there is a need for a new core scope
>> PMU.
>>
>> This patchset adds a new "power_per_core" PMU alongside the existing
>> "power" PMU, which will be responsible for collecting the new
>> "energy-per-core" event.
>>
>> Tested the package level and core level PMU counters with workloads
>> pinned to different CPUs.
>>
>> Results with workload pinned to CPU 1 in Core 1 on an AMD Zen4 Genoa 
>> machine:
>>
>> $ perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ sleep 1
>>
>>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
>>
>> S0-D0-C0         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C1         1          5.72 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C2         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C3         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C4         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C5         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C6         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C7         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C8         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C9         1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>> S0-D0-C10        1          0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3e766f0e-37d4-0f82-3868-31b14228868d@linux.intel.com/
>>
>> This patchset applies cleanly on top of v6.10-rc3 as well as latest 
>> tip/master.
>>
>> Dhananjay Ugwekar (6):
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Fix the energy-pkg event for AMD CPUs
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Rename rapl_pmu variables
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Make rapl_model struct global
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Move cpumask variable to rapl_pmus struct
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Add wrapper for online/offline functions
>>   perf/x86/rapl: Add per-core energy counter support for AMD CPUs
>>
>>  arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 311 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 233 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
>>
>>
> 
> With my CPU:
> 
>   Model name:             AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
> 
> and this workload:
> 
> $ taskset -c 1 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
> 
> the following result is got:
> 
> $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ sleep 1
> 
>  Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> 
> S0-D0-C0              1               1,70 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C1              1               8,83 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C2              1               0,17 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C3              1               0,33 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C4              1               0,14 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C5              1               0,33 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C6              1               0,25 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C7              1               0,19 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C8              1               0,66 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C9              1               1,71 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C10             1               0,38 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C11             1               1,69 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C12             1               0,22 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C13             1               0,11 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C14             1               0,49 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> S0-D0-C15             1               0,37 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> 
>        1,002409590 seconds time elapsed
> 
> If it is as expected, please add my:
> 
> Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>

We can see that after you affined the workload to cpu 1, energy 
consumption of core 1 is considerably higher than the other cores, 
which is as expected, will add your tested-by in next version.

P.S: I'm assuming here that cpu 1 is part of core 1 in your system, 
please let me know if that assumption is wrong.

Thanks for testing the patch!

Regards,
Dhananjay

> 
> Thank you.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ