| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:08:43 +0200
From: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To: 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, Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
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
On pondělí 10. června 2024 17:17:42, SELČ Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> 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.
You assumption should be correct:
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/topology/core_id
1
> Thanks for testing the patch!
>
> Regards,
> Dhananjay
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists