On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > On Tue, 2024-08-27 at 11:08 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2024-08-23 at 15:28 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024, Tero Kristo wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > .../pm/intel_uncore_frequency_scaling.rst | 51 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++Ayoub, Hatim This seems that when on AC > > > > > mode, Windows don't care about PC10. Is this correct? It seems > > > > > that with EPB=6 we can > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > Does this section even cover the "tradeoff" part in its body? Why > > > > not > > > > call > > > > it directly "Control" after ELC? > > > > > > > > > +------------------------------- > > > > > + > > > > > +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. > > > > > > > > This entire paragraph feels more prose or history book than > > > > documentation > > > > text. I'd suggest using something that goes more directly into > > > > the > > > > point > > > > about what ELC brings to the table (I suppose the goal is > > > > "performance > > > > per watt" optimization, even that goal is only implied by the > > > > current > > > > text, not explicitly stated as the goal here). > > > > > > > > > > What about this? > > > > > > Traditionally, the uncore frequency is ramped up to reach the > > > maximum > > > possible level based on parameters like EPB (Energy perf Bias) and > > > other system power management settings programmed by BIOS. While > > > this > > > strategy achieves low latency for latency sensitive applications, > > > it > > > does not necessarily yield the best performance per watt. > > > > This again starts with a wrong foot. Don't use words like > > "traditionally", > > "in the past", "historically", "is added", etc. that refer to past > > time > > in documentation text at all. The premise with documentation for > > feature x > > is that the feature x exists. After these patches have been accepted, > > the > > reality is that ELC exists and time before does not matter so we > > don't > > encumber documentation text with that era that has become irrelevant. > > > While the choice of words are not correct, for me background is > important on why a feature is implemented. > Here even after ELC is implemented, majority of generations will still > not have this feature. Uncore is not just supported on TPMI systems. I don't doubt there are plenty of systems without it, but you're supposed to document ELC, not non-ELC systems under this section. If the system does not have ELC, this section has zero relevance for the admin. (And it's a job for marketting people, not for Linux documentation, to convince people they need this new and shiny thing. :-)) Thus, the base assumption in this section is that ELC is supported and usable. > > You might occasionally have to mention what is not possible without > > ELC > > in case it's still possible to run stuff without ELC but don't put > > time > > references to it. However, it's not something you should start with > > in > > the documentation text. > > > > > The Efficiency Latency Control (ELC) feature is added to improve > > > > "is added to improve" -> "improves" > Fine. > > > > > > performance per watt. With this feature hardware power management > > > algorithms optimize trade-off between latency and power > > > consumption. > > > But for some latency sensitive workloads further tuning can be done > > > from OS to get desired performance. > > > > I'd just start with this paragraph. It goes straight into the point > > and > > is good in that it tries to summarize what ELC tries to achieve. > > There are so many features we have which improves perf/watt. I think you make an issue out of a non-issue if you think it's problem to state feature A improves performance if there are also features B and C that improve it. > Why ELC is special needs some background. "special"? I didn't get that impression at all. I'm far from convinced ELC is "special" or needs to be presented as such. > > > The hardware monitors the average CPU utilization across all cores > > > > hardware or ELC-capable HW? > Hardware. hardware always does this. So do I read you right, this is nothing ELC-specific? So all ELC does is adds those tunables (limits/overrides)? > > > in a power domain at regular intervals and decides a uncore > > > frequency. > > > > This kind of feels something that belongs to the first paragraph if > > it's > > about ELC. (I'm left slightly unsure if ELC refers only to those > > controls > > mentioned below, or if it is the automatic uncore freq control plus > > the > > manual controls. I assume it's the latter because of "with this > > feature > > hardware power management algorithms optimize" sentence.) > > It is later. Hardware doesn't do a PM feature depending only on OS. I was specifically talking about what "ELC" is but you downgraded wording back to "hardware" in your reply. So I have to repeat myself, what ELC consists of? Are these non-OS dependent features (that "hardware always does") part of ELC or not (for the avoidance of potential misunderstandings, this is assuming no ELC tunables added by this series are touched by the admin)? Obviously, when one of the tunables is touched, it impacts the allowed operating region of the autonomous algorithm (ELC tunables acting as what look like "overrides"). > > > While this may result in the best performance per watt, workload > > > may be > > > expecting higher performance at the expense of power. Consider an > > > application that intermittently wakes up to perform memory reads on > > > an > > > otherwise idle system. In such cases, if hardware lowers uncore > > > frequency, then there may be delay in ramp up of frequency to meet > > > target performance. > > > > > > The ELC control defines some parameters which can be changed from > > > OS. > > > If the average CPU utilization is below a user defined threshold > > > (elc_low_threshold_percent attribute below), the user defined > > > uncore > > > frequency floor frequency will be used (elc_floor_freq_khz > > > attribute > > > below) instead of hardware calculated minimum. > > > > > > Similarly in high load scenario where the CPU utilization goes > > > above > > > the high threshold value (elc_high_threshold_percent attribute > > > below) > > > 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: > > > .. > > > .. > > > > There were a few spaces at the end if lines, those should be removed. > Yes in the patch. > > Thanks, > Srinivas > > > > -- i.
