From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com>
Cc: <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>,
<ananth.narayan@amd.com>, <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
<ravi.bangoria@amd.com>, <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
<oleksandr@natalenko.name>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<mingo@redhat.com>, <acme@kernel.org>, <namhyung@kernel.org>,
<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
<jolsa@kernel.org>, <irogers@google.com>,
<adrian.hunter@intel.com>, <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <bp@alien8.de>,
<dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
<kees@kernel.org>, <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:54:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a26b9774-f9da-763e-aebf-5d66a6d44377@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240620125703.3297-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com>
Hello Dhananjay,
On 6/20/2024 6:26 PM, 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
When testing this on a 2P 3rd Generation EPYC System (2 x 64/128T), I
ran into an issue where it seems like the energy reporting for the
system is coming from the second socket. Following are the CPUs on each
socket of the system:
Node 0: 0-63, 128-191
Node 1: 64-127, 192-255
Following are the experiments I ran:
$ # Run a busy loop on each thread of the first socket
$ for i in `seq 0 63` `seq 128 191`; do taskset -c $i ~/scripts/loop & done
$ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5
S0-D0-C0 1 0.00 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-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-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
From the energy data, it looks as if the system is entirely idle.
If I repeat the same, pinning the running busy loop on the threads of
second socket, I see the following:
$ # Run a busy loop on each thread of the second socket
$ for i in `seq 64 127` `seq 192 255`; do taskset -c $i ~/scripts/loop & done
$ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5
S0-D0-C0 1 11.79 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C1 1 11.80 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C2 1 11.90 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C3 1 11.88 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
...
S0-D0-C63 1 11.76 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C0 1 11.81 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C1 1 11.80 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C2 1 11.90 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C3 1 11.88 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
...
S1-D1-C63 1 11.76 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
The whole system seems to be busy this time around. I've verified that
only half the system is busy using htop in either case.
Running some more experiments, I see the following:
$ taskset -c 1 ~/scripts/loop& # First thread from Core 1, Socket
$ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5
S0-D0-C0 1 0.02 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C1 1 0.21 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C2 1 0.20 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C3 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
...
(Seemingly idle system)
$ taskset -c 65 ~/scripts/loop&
$ sudo perf stat -a --per-core -e power_per_core/energy-per-core/ -- sleep 5
S0-D0-C0 1 0.01 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S0-D0-C1 1 16.73 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-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C0 1 0.01 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
S1-D1-C1 1 16.73 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-C63 1 0.00 Joules power_per_core/energy-per-core/
(Core 1 from both sockets look busy reporting identical energy
values)
Hope it helps narrow down the issue.
>
> 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-rc4 as well as latest
> tip/master.
P.S. I tested these changes on top of tip:perf/core
>
> [..snip..]
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-21 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-20 12:56 Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] perf/x86/rapl: Fix the energy-pkg event " Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] perf/x86/rapl: Rename rapl_pmu variables Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] perf/x86/rapl: Make rapl_model struct global Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] perf/x86/rapl: Move cpumask variable to rapl_pmus struct Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] perf/x86/rapl: Add wrapper for online/offline functions Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:57 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] perf/x86/rapl: Add an argument to the cleanup and init functions Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:57 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] perf/x86/rapl: Modify the generic variable names to *_pkg* Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:57 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] perf/x86/rapl: Remove the global variable rapl_msrs Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-20 12:57 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] perf/x86/rapl: Add per-core energy counter support for AMD CPUs Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-06-21 8:24 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2024-06-21 8:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] Add per-core RAPL " Dhananjay Ugwekar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a26b9774-f9da-763e-aebf-5d66a6d44377@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ananth.narayan@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=sandipan.das@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®