| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4593672.LvFx2qVVIh@natalenko.name>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:49:01 +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, hpa@...or.com,
rui.zhang@...el.com, Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, gautham.shenoy@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:
Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs
Hello.
On pondělí 16. září 2024 6:18:13, SELČ Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> Hello Oleksandr,
>
> On 9/14/2024 2:48 AM, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > On pátek 13. září 2024 17:21:40, 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/
> >>
> >> v4 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711102436.4432-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/
> >>
> >> v5 changes:
> >> * Rebase on top of Kan Liang's "PMU scope" patchset [2]
> >> * rapl_cntr_mask moved to rapl_pmus struct in patch 8
> >> * Patch 1 from v4 is merged separately, so removed from this series
> >> * Add an extra argument "scope" in patch 5 to the init functions
> >> * Add an new patch 2, which removes the cpu_to_rapl_pmu() function
> >>
> >> Base: tip/perf/core(currently has just 1-5 patches from [2]) + patch 6 from [2] +
> >> diff [3] + patch 7 from [2] + revert [4] + apply [5]
> >>
> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3e766f0e-37d4-0f82-3868-31b14228868d@linux.intel.com/
> >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240802151643.1691631-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/
> >> [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8c09633c-5bf2-48a2-91a6-a0af9b9f2e8c@linux.intel.com/
> >> [4]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=8d72eba1cf8cecd76a2b4c1dd7673c2dc775f514
> >> [5]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240910085504.204814-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/
> >>
> >> Dhananjay Ugwekar (8):
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Remove the cpu_to_rapl_pmu() function
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Rename rapl_pmu variables
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Make rapl_model struct global
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Add arguments to the cleanup and init functions
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Modify the generic variable names to *_pkg*
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Remove the global variable rapl_msrs
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Move the cntr_mask to rapl_pmus struct
> >> perf/x86/rapl: Add per-core energy counter support for AMD CPUs
> >>
> >> K Prateek Nayak (1):
> >> x86/topology: Introduce topology_logical_core_id()
> >>
> >> Documentation/arch/x86/topology.rst | 4 +
> >> arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 406 ++++++++++++++++----------
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 +
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 1 +
> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/debugfs.c | 1 +
> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c | 1 +
> >> 6 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)
> >
> > With v6.11-rc7 + all the mentioned preparatory patches and this series:
> >
> > $ taskset -c 9 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null &
> >
> > $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ sleep 5
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
> >
> > S0-D0-C0 1 3,79 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C1 1 5,65 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C2 1 1,26 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C3 1 3,18 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C4 1 2,06 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C5 1 3,51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C6 1 0,77 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C7 1 0,55 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C8 1 1,65 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C9 1 47,85 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C10 1 2,49 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C11 1 11,85 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C12 1 1,75 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C13 1 0,74 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C14 1 2,58 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> > S0-D0-C15 1 4,67 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
> >
> > 5,003391425 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > on the following CPU:
> >
> > AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-Core Processor
> >
> > If this behaves as expected, please add:
> >
> > Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
>
> Energy reported by core 9 is considerably higher than other cores, which is as expected.
>
> However, can you please post the core_id for CPU 9 just to be sure,
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/topology/core_id
9
> also I see that other
> cores are also showing considerable energy consumption(e.g. core 11), are there some other
> tasks running in the background?
Yes, this is a fully-featured desktop environment. Another run:
S0-D0-C0 1 7,68 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C1 1 2,05 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C2 1 0,96 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C3 1 5,16 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C4 1 1,11 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C5 1 2,42 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C6 1 1,11 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C7 1 0,51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C8 1 1,61 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C9 1 47,07 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C10 1 1,59 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C11 1 3,02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C12 1 1,43 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C13 1 0,84 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C14 1 0,73 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C15 1 0,78 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
Thank you.
>
> Thanks for testing!
>
> 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