From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn7nam10on2047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.92.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D88293BBC2; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.92.47 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719211159; cv=fail; b=vCIFElg5Bn8BNNFpVTSO1myopiaCjGR/NgxM1FdrsE3WOryRaxZXvTUcM5nv9qgI8rsEIt0HcZkV58VxYGZ/v5tLJZXbMcbq8JXdZQdv5EF+WiLhvzyXLOVIJP/HLFzG11NSLc86MV0B24GDKxRwbneqFNTjsLzlHwGQkw9nWpU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719211159; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z79sT/BGkOzVjZNG6SYShpQp+1hOy+Rh4hau3hczsa8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Xc4cP6v4/PozgtJJxk8IO9Cy7Hc9PVziEzxJyyjZMYVFXLDX0SarFm7r2eG/ppPuuvRXHH7ippouVKGUtuPpeYiKiZAPwFLsTZassK2t568eIMBBnGj31jSKkEGOEmusRifTafYjnhczcRS7UIqa/L+ZwcKCIu+RB+78ebilopU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=2; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amd.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amd.com header.i=@amd.com header.b=sfzSSg0R; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.92.47 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amd.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=amd.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amd.com header.i=@amd.com header.b="sfzSSg0R" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Kz/YpudkTnexXX3GSNFRw10hrFLKbz/RsCByC/YbzjX7yb3f3xSw878VSkGLWUJaPSdHPtlRDAeGUyR5yaZGSZd9MAHVgSo9l5RUBN4SzOdFoAM4VkNWUKhwrohzKDPrCTxANsC3WGOQNAmasIbLYnO7Ri/BoMmBbxPO0KjTimDcfUzUDWQ/kCP+BIvTWup26wmMbi9S3BFmMXdkZpI3z0NR0+xvnXBdO+EyWLiiCze2k5ckOZjxCndYWJ3reUvY6gT9eYR/XSP6y2lKXac73m4W/lFb/UkVoQOsk0vPlThvdZ953HKJB9LgLIE0TQsAZuD2cvOJUj6H7E8dDiRGcw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=PJOPF+/q8MQ7xRB7Z6D6kDajcKnyujjYO3CWF0fQ6F8=; b=KHNJI/cxR9BybmICLCLjz81KT5WxQTgfEQE96rZuo2d6Vn1sVpZ+VSmj8cwy8fRnK5gyeBgkA99+ShBgzlKl3qMqhy7X62uGf5cu6pxtBYJoaz4hiTpTTsRnrGQxs01F7YWt/F4H9h4JfThxxALcxjjsLQtQTuzBmOi/rbcHCMKbbwVi0j9p2zWzUID6OI0r7lQmdSmINlp4ZsnpmUscwGibnPEtOaZurnF8epe3DYPZnqLshfxF70/VZUUWFL5+9QfsQoqHkJd2U0SyjTw6vZwuo0MAqy0D5QeCQiMpJulnt6i9PtLlYF1FVdYb5JK5xFJ2vmD4NluhBgkk/132HQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=intel.com smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none (0) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amd.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=PJOPF+/q8MQ7xRB7Z6D6kDajcKnyujjYO3CWF0fQ6F8=; b=sfzSSg0ROkpQ/L6WUlhSkyXDq9dn2OUYRMzhrMPUvkSaKjKVvrWYaA/zJ3qlYfbifYc1RnFnyr0qAh6lwLbn6qmC3cXMVtuFHiUV6W0p5W/hWZKRHEqmRjXXANzYpCersINd9eM+dzIvCFRjVM1sNZLkkykrPAiUUl5dYpw67ic= Received: from CH0PR04CA0061.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:610:74::6) by SA1PR12MB6704.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:254::6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7698.25; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:39:13 +0000 Received: from DS3PEPF0000C37E.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:610:74:cafe::46) by CH0PR04CA0061.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:610:74::6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7677.38 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:39:13 +0000 X-MS-Exchange-Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 165.204.84.17) smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=amd.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C Received: from SATLEXMB04.amd.com (165.204.84.17) by DS3PEPF0000C37E.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.23.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.7677.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:39:13 +0000 Received: from [10.136.36.140] (10.180.168.240) by SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:39:06 -0500 Message-ID: <0afc09f6-da93-dde5-45ad-d4784b9b4227@amd.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:09:03 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs Content-Language: en-US To: Dhananjay Ugwekar CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240624055907.7720-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com> From: K Prateek Nayak In-Reply-To: <20240624055907.7720-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: SATLEXMB03.amd.com (10.181.40.144) To SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DS3PEPF0000C37E:EE_|SA1PR12MB6704:EE_ X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: e86476be-0b67-42e3-c445-08dc94185c91 X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;ARA:13230037|1800799021|82310400023|7416011|36860700010|376011; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: =?utf-8?B?K3Rqc0x6dmVJTU9jTG53cDJ1eTRpblVtcU5OeXhPK0s2QzhoaldmclFaN3Nm?= =?utf-8?B?QUxJMVN6M0FsWTZSUW9HUUExMkF6Vzdrc3l6dnozNmc4N1Ftek0yMTQrUjZt?= =?utf-8?B?TUhkbFJlbTlZdm9CUDVUa3FkU3VvS01OUjI4Z25PZnJWT1N3aTFKcm1Id0tF?= =?utf-8?B?dkloLzJkbnVGbzkwRjYyYmRUMTRzbENydzNuVVNvVm1tSm1yVGtFZEFYeUJm?= =?utf-8?B?dkx2eFJ3cFozQ1NWc2Q3dm1UemhQMzJPRnVUWmFYWUQwWitmKzlHdi9VUVQr?= =?utf-8?B?Y0NoTUFHUWxIdFdMbG9sVERuY09GNDVaVzdiQkx5VzJkbC9XVWFrd2NVem1G?= =?utf-8?B?Z0J3WG80Z3BycUhwK1kxaDZBRmM0cUhKZjE2ZmNYTFpHdUxMNnBtckIzalVL?= =?utf-8?B?QkliUkdsTkNxTkdYbU8yT3cyeEFrRDkrMHRLMXJBay95RWxmcXF5bTRpUmpF?= =?utf-8?B?dG8yZG5BVnVVY2R1ZTQ1dnlFczlxRldSanFrRTBOUi95YkpxRG9hNVJlaWpW?= =?utf-8?B?U1VDVHdhYlpJKy9wWGpra3VDQk01STdsdjlURTZCSVQ3NUVld28wN1UzeW9G?= =?utf-8?B?eWkrVG1jTUYxTDdyajlJbEdQa3BDRVRpN3hLeG5rTElsREQ4T2hjSkJSN2FF?= =?utf-8?B?OHZqT2J3UUNMTzdwdWEvOU14RjR6aGlBTTBDRVlxNUNHUTZYY05GQ2lsb0da?= =?utf-8?B?MEFxczE3ZmVMT0pDYTMyQ3ZPZzNodWMvTjJlV3B5UEExcUEzdDVpS1E0cHRL?= =?utf-8?B?dU41a3h3MnJLdlJXZzFaL2xLR1phTUxwcEFuOTBEeElXSkk0clB0STFUZXN1?= =?utf-8?B?RlM2S2RzN2RnaFVucGRva2JLV0RWU2h3cXRQWkxiVUFQYmpJYXZWVUxCL2RM?= =?utf-8?B?emR3MjUrTFpoMks0U1NramZDck10Vkh2SzRGay9QMlZHVU1DWnY4R2toZTZh?= =?utf-8?B?SE9vZkhlUU9SY200Y3NXcDhJL0tGNU9Ecm40aDZYbXVqL2MvMU1hcmxpbjdM?= =?utf-8?B?dFlWV1NGdnhINE1kdmErZWRQVy9xSVFxVEdVeFJzckVXUC9BSWlnSzVncGU3?= =?utf-8?B?bS8yc01LcUg0MEhOZmpUbEovb09jL0FVYmRHMVEyVXNxNFR1aUp2eTRDd3R5?= =?utf-8?B?a25COGVRRlgyZXIwdUZZRmx2VWtBRHJZOG9TZzdBMEpDS3FrUmFSTmdNOTE4?= =?utf-8?B?Z3Vlck1GT2t0cVc2aytJcG9qTzcxMHhtQU8rRExuNFVDWkp3aHBFZVcrMElU?= =?utf-8?B?MURvcXNyRVZoYmNub0dJSFhTbWVOY29LY3VIaXlQby9GdExJendrbFZ5RERx?= =?utf-8?B?MzZ0ZnFQbjFVbjYyejVsaFVZeEpGUGgzY2Z1eVdqbTZlLzdPQ0NuZXZuZjNs?= =?utf-8?B?NkxMM01ITURSdWp4UEIvazBHVWpHMmE3VlZJWFFoeUtsV0VtOXFRRGQyeFcv?= =?utf-8?B?akZnUWE5VEF1T3ZIcnFVMkZuaG5TbnVMOHF3Mm1oZkxVQlhGTDdmbXZDZmZR?= =?utf-8?B?U1JEV1l0Mi9rQmhDQlZPR2wrcmJUSXgyMjVFYXduc2lTZWE5TWV6UVUvdmFm?= =?utf-8?B?dENNVFRBdVhDckJGWm8vRXBGaEMyK2RoaGtZWG5Vd3l4MWVkdm9FNE5TR3lL?= =?utf-8?B?akFoYmc3a1VrSXdXVWdiVDQ3cHo5d0tyTnFPa0oxZVVZYi8ya3l6bDhCN2RW?= =?utf-8?B?LzZkYTl6SUs1NDNyVTFVNTdHM25tNHVMVHdtUWQ2WWYyQlpiR2lFU0J3N3Uv?= =?utf-8?B?eElVZzJNbWlrbmUvdDFYdG5kZnVrNklqZ0txMkVZNmRGQ1hPN3dIWlRpd3BN?= =?utf-8?Q?dn1BrUpCNQoRH63LLro3rJKqlyMJ8T3gCmDI0=3D?= X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:165.204.84.17;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:CAL;SFV:NSPM;H:SATLEXMB04.amd.com;PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230037)(1800799021)(82310400023)(7416011)(36860700010)(376011);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2024 06:39:13.1700 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e86476be-0b67-42e3-c445-08dc94185c91 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com] X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DS3PEPF0000C37E.namprd04.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR12MB6704 Hello Dhananjay, On 6/24/2024 11:28 AM, 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/ Tested a bunch of scenarios on my 2P 3rd Generation EPYC server and this time around I'm seeing the expected behavior. I'll leave some of scenarios I've tested below: $ for i in `seq 0 63`; do taskset -c $i loop & done $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5 S0-D0-C0 1 10.82 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C1 1 10.87 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C2 1 10.86 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C3 1 10.89 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C4 1 10.91 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S0-D0-C63 1 11.03 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C0 1 0.19 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C1 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C2 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C3 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C4 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S1-D1-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ $ for i in `seq 64 127`; do taskset -c $i loop & done $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5 S0-D0-C0 1 0.17 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C1 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C2 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C3 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C4 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S0-D0-C63 1 0.01 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C0 1 10.51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C1 1 10.50 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C2 1 10.52 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C3 1 10.51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C4 1 10.51 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S1-D1-C63 1 10.59 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ $ for i in `seq 0 15`; do taskset -c $i loop & done $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5 S0-D0-C0 1 11.16 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C1 1 11.21 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C2 1 11.20 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C3 1 11.24 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C4 1 11.25 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C5 1 11.26 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C6 1 11.25 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C7 1 11.25 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C8 1 11.42 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C9 1 11.43 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C10 1 11.47 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C11 1 11.43 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C12 1 11.44 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C13 1 11.41 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C14 1 11.40 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C15 1 11.41 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C16 1 0.33 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S0-D0-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C0 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C1 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C2 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C3 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C4 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C5 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C6 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C7 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C8 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C9 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C10 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C11 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C12 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C13 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C14 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C15 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C16 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S1-D1-C63 1 0.01 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ $ for i in `seq 0 7` `seq 128 131` `seq 64 71` `seq 192 199`; do taskset -c $i loop & done $ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5 S0-D0-C0 1 18.68 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C1 1 18.20 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C2 1 18.27 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C3 1 18.41 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C4 1 16.94 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C5 1 16.95 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C6 1 16.92 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C7 1 16.94 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S0-D0-C8 1 0.39 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S0-D0-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C0 1 18.59 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C1 1 18.39 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C2 1 17.50 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C3 1 18.29 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C4 1 18.58 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C5 1 17.62 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C6 1 17.75 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C7 1 17.53 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ S1-D1-C8 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ ... S1-D1-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/ Unlike last time, each socket is reporting accurate values for all the scenarios I've tried above. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3e766f0e-37d4-0f82-3868-31b14228868d@linux.intel.com/ > > This patchset applies cleanly on top of v6.10-rc4 as well as latest > tip/master. P.S. I tested this on top of v6.10-rc4 this time around. Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak > > v3 changes: > * Patch 1 added to introduce the logical_core_id which is unique across > the system (Prateek) > * Use the unique topology_logical_core_id() instead of > topology_core_id() (which is only unique within a package on tested > AMD and Intel systems) in Patch 10 > > [..snip..] > -- Thanks and Regards, Prateek