From: "Natarajan, Janakarajan" <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>,
"Natarajan, Janakarajan" <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Pu Wen <puwen@hygon.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modify cpupower to schedule itself on cores it is reading MSRs from
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:45:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64022abd-a798-c679-1c1d-eec9b18c4fb2@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4340017.MFpoU6RDpq@c100>
On 9/27/19 4:48 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 6:07:56 PM CEST Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote:
>> On 9/18/2019 11:34 AM, Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote:
>>> This is advantageous because an IPI is not generated when a read_msr() is
>>> executed on the local logical CPU thereby reducing the chance of having
>>> APERF and MPERF being out of sync.
>>> + if (sched_setaffinity(getpid(), sizeof(set), &set) == -1) {
>>> + dprint("Could not migrate to cpu: %d\n", cpu);
>>> + return 1;
> On a 80 core cpu the process would be pushed around through the
> system quite a lot.
> This might affect what you are measuring or the other measure values?
> Otherwise it's the kernel's MSR read only, not the whole cpupower process,
> right? No idea about the exact overhead, though. Others in CC list should
> know.
On a 256 logical-cpu Rome system we see C0 value from cpupower output go
from 0.01 to ~(0.1 to 1.00)
for all cpus with the 1st patch.
However, this goes down to ~0.01 when we use the RDPRU instruction
(which can be used to get
APERF/MPERF from CPL > 0) and avoid using the msr module (patch 2).
> Afaik msr reads through msr module should be avoided anyway?
> Those which are worth it are abstracted through sysfs nowadays?
>
> For aperf/mperf it might make sense to define a sysfs file where you
> can read both, as this is what you always need?
>
> It would take a while, but could be a longterm solution which is also
> usable in secure boot or without msr module case.
Yes. That is a good long term idea. An interface which could be used to
query APERF, MPERF
for a logical cpu in one go.
However, for systems that provide an instruction to get register values
from userspace, would a
command-line parameter be acceptable?
i.e. p: precise measurement.
When this is set, the cpupower process can migrate to each cpu and ,if
an instruction is available
which can get the APERF/MPERF from CPL > 0, use it. That would cut out
the msr module and the
overhead can be reduced.
Thanks.
> Thomas
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-02 14:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-18 16:34 [PATCH 1/2] Modify cpupower to schedule itself on cores it is reading MSRs from Natarajan, Janakarajan
2019-09-18 16:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] Update cpupower to use the RDPRU instruction Natarajan, Janakarajan
2019-09-27 16:07 ` [PATCH 1/2] Modify cpupower to schedule itself on cores it is reading MSRs from Natarajan, Janakarajan
2019-09-27 21:48 ` Thomas Renninger
2019-10-02 14:45 ` Natarajan, Janakarajan [this message]
2019-10-05 12:40 ` Thomas Renninger
2019-10-07 21:11 ` Natarajan, Janakarajan
2019-10-10 11:22 ` Thomas Renninger
2019-10-11 16:58 ` Natarajan, Janakarajan
2019-09-27 18:59 ` shuah
2019-09-30 15:34 ` Natarajan, Janakarajan
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=64022abd-a798-c679-1c1d-eec9b18c4fb2@amd.com \
--to=janakarajan.natarajan@amd.com \
--cc=allison@lohutok.net \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=puwen@hygon.com \
--cc=rfontana@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=trenn@suse.com \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).