From: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@linux.intel.com>
To: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com,
ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, hdegoede@redhat.com
Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: admin-guide: pm: Add efficiency vs. latency tradeoff to uncore documentation
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:10:28 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240821131321.824326-2-tero.kristo@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240821131321.824326-1-tero.kristo@linux.intel.com>
Added documentation about the functionality of efficiency vs. latency tradeoff
control in intel Xeon processors, and how this is configured via sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@linux.intel.com>
---
.../pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst
index 5ab3440e6cee..fb83aa2b744e 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst
@@ -113,3 +113,54 @@ to apply at each uncore* level.
Support for "current_freq_khz" is available only at each fabric cluster
level (i.e., in uncore* directory).
+
+Efficiency vs. Latency Tradeoff
+-------------------------------
+
+In the realm of high-performance computing, particularly with Xeon
+processors, managing uncore frequency is an important aspect of system
+optimization. Traditionally, the uncore frequency is ramped up rapidly
+in high load scenarios. While this strategy achieves low latency, which
+is crucial for time-sensitive computations, it does not necessarily yield
+the best performance per watt, —a key metric for energy efficiency and
+operational cost savings.
+
+The Efficiency vs. Latency Control (ELC) feature allows user to influence
+the uncore frequency scaling algorithm. Hardware monitors the average CPU
+utilization across all cores at regular intervals. If the average CPU
+utilization is below a user defined threshold (elc_low_threshold_percent),
+the user defined uncore frequency floor frequency will be used
+(elc_floor_freq_khz), minimizing latency. Similarly in high load scenario
+where the CPU utilization goes above the high threshold value
+(elc_high_threshold_percent) instead of jumping to maximum uncore
+frequency, uncore frequency is increased in 100MHz steps until the power
+limit is reached.
+
+Attributes for efficiency latency control:
+
+``elc_floor_freq_khz``
+ This attribute is used to get/set the efficiency latency floor frequency.
+ If this variable is lower than the 'min_freq_khz', it is ignored by
+ the firmware.
+
+``elc_low_threshold_percent``
+ This attribute is used to get/set the efficiency latency control low
+ threshold. This attribute is in percentages of CPU utilization.
+
+``elc_high_threshold_percent``
+ This attribute is used to get/set the efficiency latency control high
+ threshold. This attribute is in percentages of CPU utilization.
+
+``elc_high_threshold_enable``
+ This attribute is used to enable/disable the efficiency latency control
+ high threshold. Write '1' to enable, '0' to disable.
+
+Example system configuration below, which does following:
+ * when CPU utilization is less than 10%: sets uncore frequency to 800MHz
+ * when CPU utilization is higher than 95%: increases uncore frequency in
+ 100MHz steps, until power limit is reached
+
+ elc_floor_freq_khz:800000
+ elc_high_threshold_percent:95
+ elc_high_threshold_enable:1
+ elc_low_threshold_percent:10
--
2.43.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-21 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-21 13:10 [PATCH 0/3] platform/x86: Add support for Intel uncore ELC feature Tero Kristo
2024-08-21 13:10 ` Tero Kristo [this message]
2024-08-23 12:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: admin-guide: pm: Add efficiency vs. latency tradeoff to uncore documentation Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-26 14:45 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-08-27 8:08 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-27 11:30 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-08-27 13:34 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-21 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] platform/x86/intel-uncore-freq: Add support for efficiency latency control Tero Kristo
2024-08-23 12:48 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-26 15:55 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-08-21 13:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] platform/x86/intel-uncore-freq: Add efficiency latency control to sysfs interface Tero Kristo
2024-08-23 13:03 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-23 13:12 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-08-23 13:29 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-08-23 14:43 ` srinivas pandruvada
2024-08-26 9:37 ` Ilpo Järvinen
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=20240821131321.824326-2-tero.kristo@linux.intel.com \
--to=tero.kristo@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
/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