From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam11on2055.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.220.55]) (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 8EE9C127B5A; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.220.55 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718958279; cv=fail; b=ckiWpAWIFJQze/SGzJ8ibWArzj11yXqx02ca6pa9fCJXpRIgcVb2Q3yiXe/AqE+2Bo5NQglPNRXF3rA8jskoZ5qTNBc7yb0sQgwWCC7RyL2FI5l6F7j87KxdzzFx/bZMWN+zvLDD8MI2k+chXoV9gQdmjGZiyUk7d0SwlWBvKyQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718958279; c=relaxed/simple; bh=frrQUpi9pWxnTQ1j5fnEsIcVkqYVZ+nUvpBGqHSNJAI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=GYk3wDfGK8QApsI251wAsXaJnyTh9JIH6ueByxrnb1pDm450hqBmBQXWeqXLhsCzWK22nUJ15uL4uBB0XVHMXplnLXe8jKuFdhMbc4bsbe8dJXEVlpwYHkml+Zw0yZSEtbXlR5HhrZbVEb2kGYVfBxfx7PTRc3rwQVtRAstfP4k= 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=srH4FgSX; arc=fail smtp.client-ip=40.107.220.55 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="srH4FgSX" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=mPkQEM+4som/FByBfhd7ZwNmWEhHxZ/ksBaOryGNUAhHslnodA7KrfK+v2DODb1+bwxlrDSugC6132nV50VvclK4YzqgLoNTjg9aPHu4+2knUoOInZYpQTNQ+20RmfpMRSujm/cEivd2ZyPVTBZmRn9Fmxg7ij2t636eCA38Z3x7N1sPZUofpvaCoepzIiuTyIO6lvypwSE9Jq8u3GN9vLITq7KOq2J9V4ixNQ94RImxg9PEDsLUOvwn/QLOw09WquJJBtATLGU3pzS1e3ikdCNSjDU6f0tGmad45yzwDKzlmeX8uOqkAtOlUqSOPw+dtf2ZdxTUCnrQoku5fFcQHA== 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=SGr7UX0Te0wMya+7F1XKgIKopnVFsLhKqvZldSDQtyA=; b=QTVCkIb1Axw5g6LIwmO0WgPgz2kklR318gUvNcrXR25CPGklg3O2L/OZhWU3cb0P/+L0bu/pjtjcYfQ6Uf+PLRidxD0rqCZeJnHRESM1AjCmQ9vhOPy0GQIzDWoqndO3l/IDDTYTEYsOn0B5JHjS4ipEWNrBlI88VxUd9eFQJQKZg46+62U4GurBsJzIZDLsicCce2w0gyLUl9biitpBZCOn9YC4c1y3Vm21CTMGeA7PhsNcZZwj0CuY56v9nnRTQmcyW7M1cqfxreIZEJT5W12EQzCkTj8dILwXoylI5gqZpFmTzLLDENINxix7W9DHdOQivQ3AvoF2Uby8zQWHJg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 165.204.84.17) smtp.rcpttodomain=vger.kernel.org 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=SGr7UX0Te0wMya+7F1XKgIKopnVFsLhKqvZldSDQtyA=; b=srH4FgSX6QcdLuNm1dGWg7syJ1cBCUZygTnLVsU0Mu8krDYjYA7c4jfZsCeVS36wIgAOnC+8TD8GMDl9pI6b8Nz0+0VIWtrtPNUQoEWM3i2u0U3jjpEDuc0DjCbVf3eZnSCeC3EovPh2VB6NU1i3Z+0GfHKkmBiciwBOjcHam1U= Received: from BY5PR17CA0007.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1b8::20) by PH7PR12MB6443.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:1f9::5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7698.19; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:24:32 +0000 Received: from CO1PEPF000044EE.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1b8:cafe::65) by BY5PR17CA0007.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:a03:1b8::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7677.36 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:24:32 +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 CO1PEPF000044EE.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.241.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.7677.15 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:24:32 +0000 Received: from [10.136.33.236] (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; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 03:24:24 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:54:22 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@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 v2 0/9] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs Content-Language: en-US To: Dhananjay Ugwekar CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20240620125703.3297-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com> From: K Prateek Nayak In-Reply-To: <20240620125703.3297-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) To SATLEXMB04.amd.com (10.181.40.145) X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: CO1PEPF000044EE:EE_|PH7PR12MB6443:EE_ X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 961cea88-776d-48a3-3b43-08dc91cb93ba X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1 X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;ARA:13230037|36860700010|376011|7416011|1800799021|82310400023; X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: =?utf-8?B?OENJTDh3T0lua0Urc05sSFJiVXFrNHlnVUtlMldwVkJHSGFZa0p6YXhyRkpo?= =?utf-8?B?S1ZabStscmZyRTNsejg0WkdNTW11bVRXb0NCSER1YVhISHlXaWJJdGJ5Y0xS?= =?utf-8?B?M1JHUGVUcVhTOG93bVIrczdtVGdXamJXUWN3dmVOcitWRW1rRk5ZRDM3cGFY?= =?utf-8?B?QXdiL3RsMGdPS1p0TW1OeW0yeFVxUlM4QWppcnEram4zendKbmxoZDZ3azla?= =?utf-8?B?Y0ZMcG1qMXJ5bDljZ2h3VDVIUEtjOWFOQ3E3c1ZKdnY4NWpBS3FGbzR5Kyt1?= =?utf-8?B?dnFzd1VReUJ3dTF5bDlIZ0ZZUDZqQzZVZlJla25Nd0p3eG1IOVhHKzFkTVhk?= =?utf-8?B?Tm5lMjZpbXF3bzk4bFdXQzgvS3EwMkwwazlRMFV3SE5iNUJ4cG1VZ0phanBn?= =?utf-8?B?dEo3N1VTNVlNVmVqNlh3L01qTWU3N3NjM2YyM1I1anJGNkQ3c2xLdkRib0o2?= =?utf-8?B?bWpoVEd4VTJNdE15c3FkYVJJSzhwbEwwRTdIYnQwMFZpQ0t0eEk5dERSczA3?= =?utf-8?B?LzdmbWt0MVZvSTg1ZnNMbGdpQnBiZTV0N29XQVpwK2tzMnl1bkx6OXFOY0sx?= =?utf-8?B?UzVCNm5mcFY0R09peGtleGpZQm9YUkVmeTAyZzRBeTVMbnhGUlJpSzFpVXFZ?= =?utf-8?B?NERmRVBJVmQ5Q0FUY3JJblBRSi9kSjBIcVNKRW1mcFQ5REJDU0wvenVzQVlT?= =?utf-8?B?bUVFQ3k3QThjdnVmc3NIQVFYM292SUw3cEFWeW4rc3d3MHYxSkVrcEpuSXBw?= =?utf-8?B?aVJ4eHZCc05zQWs3Y2V2Vk0yWHA2TkRjeTF5NDNVVElkbU5wMjFlYzBsSDh5?= =?utf-8?B?TVdldzVvKzhEZFJxUE92NGxoRzlOcFB3SWlkMDZUdXlQVEFMMWx6QzNERXc0?= =?utf-8?B?VXE4aTJ4WGVFM3VhSURJVFFSeVZkMk9EdWw4NGRHaHdhTTVBM0lnRkdnRkk2?= =?utf-8?B?OUlwdmpmTDRTdjg5My9GeDZGS25WQmpTU3IwMlFhREk5VHp2VzllbXpJWjBD?= =?utf-8?B?dUF5eDBMNjZDKzJTS3cwRTlONG54UHd2WEpzMkYwQUh0YWhsZ2VpQTFSZ25X?= =?utf-8?B?cDJKNzJ0b3Z3YXQxZFBMWU4yTWhOa2V1TllZY2xGazVySWRmd09HM1dUajZr?= =?utf-8?B?YnJhUzNhWUNuNkxKR0x1V00wekNIc09sQ2FWM0tkeGl6YUtrbVNXQS9SVlBB?= =?utf-8?B?ZFRFWUkvSlJUdUN6QnVTVjBHRHNDNUsxc3QwTk9ERU12bE9nS2JnaWgrVnZa?= =?utf-8?B?QjhHTlQrR092N1RPQ3V2S1dnT3c2dVdKNjFLb0E0YmtSRC93T2lKa0lEemRp?= =?utf-8?B?RDBabGJ1aG5GV3krNldPTlUwU1Jvc3diK0ZqMkVpUEJtTFJOSXdtVWd3ZFA4?= =?utf-8?B?QTNvOURud1Y4OTBFZTFueEZaQjlWWXphNi9MWlZjRWVlV0pPcDFobkxNYkdG?= =?utf-8?B?ekJYUGQ3bmpQaVlKdnByZE1YdE93OXFJWjYwWGxPSUdOQ2VBWElTOHl3a3pH?= =?utf-8?B?V2FFQkVySDlMcGZjUndDYUVXeHlCNWNVdjFFRkUyMEZsRUp4UmZFWXZkRktT?= =?utf-8?B?MlZ5K2M5L3laUTJqUFJxTnduRlBoajZ1K1h1dnRsZGhCWjQ4Qk9GaDJ3VjBK?= =?utf-8?B?aW82d0lpUzRNdjF1VStZaTJJbU1iUC9RM0U3MVpETXVBY25yb2JOdVkyelhO?= =?utf-8?B?aVB3U1JqK1hKRWQ4ZE1PWE9sbEVSRGNDV2pRUU03MWtKSDVNaFA0QWpFZHlX?= =?utf-8?B?M0NMKzNYMHFMUVdLSXBEMzJXWm5jNVNrMkdKRDZVanVwbkdGSkpSQThvUk5R?= =?utf-8?B?eG10TDZpLzFGUkdQUWxFdz09?= 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)(36860700010)(376011)(7416011)(1800799021)(82310400023);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2024 08:24:32.0737 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 961cea88-776d-48a3-3b43-08dc91cb93ba 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: CO1PEPF000044EE.namprd05.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR12MB6443 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