| 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 20:47:42 +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