linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/rapl: Enable Core RAPL for AMD

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]

Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:29:01 -0800
From:   Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gautham.shenoy@....com,
        ananth.narayan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/rapl: Enable Core RAPL for AMD

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 04:13:54PM +0000, Wyes Karny wrote:
> > AMD processors support per-package and per-core energy monitoring
> > through RAPL counters which can be accessed by users running in
> > supervisor mode.
> >
> > Core RAPL counters gives power consumption information per core.  For
> > AMD processors the package level RAPL counter are already exposed to
> > perf. Expose the core level RAPL counters also.
> >
> > sudo perf stat -a --per-core -C 0-127 -e power/energy-cores/
> >
> > Output:
> > S0-D0-C0           2               8.73 Joules power/energy-cores/
> > S0-D0-C1           2               8.73 Joules power/energy-cores/
> > S0-D0-C2           2               8.73 Joules power/energy-cores/
> > S0-D0-C3           2               8.73 Joules power/energy-cores/
> > S0-D0-C4           2               8.73 Joules power/energy-cores/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> > index 52e6e7ed4f78..d301bbbc3b93 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ static struct perf_msr intel_rapl_spr_msrs[] = {
> >   * - want to use same event codes across both architectures
> >   */
> >  static struct perf_msr amd_rapl_msrs[] = {
> > -     [PERF_RAPL_PP0]  = { 0, &rapl_events_cores_group, 0, false, 0 },
> > +     [PERF_RAPL_PP0]  = { MSR_AMD_CORE_ENERGY_STATUS, &rapl_events_cores_group, test_msr, false, RAPL_MSR_MASK },
>
> Stephane, this was an oversight?
>
I think it may depend on the CPU model. I remember it returning either
0 or bogus values on my systems. They may have improved that.
The commit msg does not show which CPU model this is run on.

>
> >       [PERF_RAPL_PKG]  = { MSR_AMD_PKG_ENERGY_STATUS,  &rapl_events_pkg_group,   test_msr, false, RAPL_MSR_MASK },
> >       [PERF_RAPL_RAM]  = { 0, &rapl_events_ram_group,   0, false, 0 },
> >       [PERF_RAPL_PP1]  = { 0, &rapl_events_gpu_group,   0, false, 0 },
> > @@ -764,7 +764,8 @@ static struct rapl_model model_spr = {
> >  };
> >
> >  static struct rapl_model model_amd_hygon = {
> > -     .events         = BIT(PERF_RAPL_PKG),
> > +     .events         = BIT(PERF_RAPL_PP0) |
> > +                       BIT(PERF_RAPL_PKG),
> >       .msr_power_unit = MSR_AMD_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> >       .rapl_msrs      = amd_rapl_msrs,
> >  };
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >