Hello Rui, On 7/2/2024 7:55 AM, Zhang, Rui wrote: > On Mon, 2024-07-01 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 05:59:05AM +0000, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote: >>> Prep for addition of power_per_core PMU to handle core scope energy >>> consumption for AMD CPUs. >>> >>> Replace the generic names with *_pkg*, to differentiate between the >>> scopes of the two different PMUs and their variables. >> >> But then remember patch 2 and recall that intel seems to have >> everything >> at die level, not pkg. >> >> Does this proposed naming make sense? How? > > For Intel products, we have > 1. Casecadelake-AP which has multi-die per package and has per-die RAPL > MSRs > 2. all other platforms which has single-die per package, so its RAPL > MSRs can be considered as either package-scope or die-scope > This applies to Thermal MSRs as well. > > so for these MSRs, we can treat them as > 1. always die-scope for all existing platforms > or > 2. package-scope with the exception of Casecadelake-ap > And current kernel code follows rule 1. > > I propose we switch to rule 2 for these code because rule 1 can be > broke on future multi-die systems (This is already true for Thermal > MSRs).
I have a doubt about this, won't the future Intel multi-die systems have die-scope for the RAPL PMU like Casecadelake-AP? If yes, then rule 1 above seems better. Regards, Dhananjay > > In this sense, I think it is okay to call it pkg level rapl for both > Intel and AMD. > > thanks, > rui >
