[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQ_bSTC-OEe_LrgUrpj2VsseX1ThvO-yLcEtF8vb4+AAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:50:44 -0800
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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
Hi,
Testing Wyes' patch for energy-cores on Zen3 server loaded with triad
bench on socket0:
$ perf stat --per-core -a -C0-63 -I 1000 -e
power/energy-cores/,power/energy-pkg/
# time core cpus counts unit events
1.001019203 S0-D0-C0 1 1.28 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C0 1 231.38 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C1 1 4,294,967,130.96 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C1 1 231.38 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C2 1 4,294,967,126.23 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C2 1 231.38 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C3 1 4,294,967,122.50 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C3 1 231.38 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C4 1 4,294,967,129.92 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C4 1 231.38 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C5 1 4,294,967,121.49 Joules
power/energy-cores/
1.001019203 S0-D0-C5 1 231.39 Joules
power/energy-pkg/
I think the result of energy-cores is not reliable and I think that is
why I did not
include it in the patch.
Could also be a problem with the kernel code, but I don't know why it would only
impact energy-cores given energy-pkg looks reasonable here.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:53 PM Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com> wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 13:29, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I've tested this on Zen 2, 3 and 4 server systems.
>
> Thanks,
> Wyes
> >
> > >
> > > > [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
> > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists