First of all, I do not know whether I should be asking this here or in the Electronics StackExchange, so please let me know if you think I should ask it there.
I am interested in measuring the energy consumption of each CPU core in Intel CPUs. I have read Intel's Intel 64 developer manual, and, as I understand, RAPL will provide energy estimations for:
The whole Package
The Cores
An unspecified Uncore device (Only in client processors)
The DRAM (Only in server processors)
This would indicate that the best I can aspire to is a value for the collective energy consumption of all the cores in the CPU. However, I also know that "RAPL is not an analog power meter, but rather uses a software power model", according to https://01.org/blogs/2014/running-average-power-limit-%E2%80%93-rapl.
What I would like to know is, is the way this model works known, or publicly available? And, would it be possible to get an estimation of individual core power consumption using metrics provided by RAPL or other interfaces? I know that, if Intel isn't providing this information through RAPL it is probably impossible to get it, but I would like to at least find a source that confirms that.
Thanks for your help!
Here is a post on different tools that you can use to get energy measurements for different Operating Systems. If you are using Linux, consider using the Perf since it uses the RAPL interface to get energy measurements. As far as I know, Perf does not offer energy consumption per core but as a whole (package) and you can get energy measurements for an executable (of any kind: Python, Java, SHELL, C, and so on) using the following command:
sudo perf stat -e power/energy-cores/ ./executable
Related
Judging by the latest news, new Apple processor A11 Bionic gains more points than the mobile Intel Core i7 in the Geekbench benchmark.
As I understand, there are a lot of different tests in this benchmark. These tests simulate a different load, including the load, which can occur in everyday use.
Some people state that these results can not be compared to x86 results. They say that x86 is able to perform "more complex tasks". As an example, they lead Photoshop, video conversion, scientific calculations. I agree that the software for the ARM is often only a "lighweight" version of software for desktops. But it seems to me that this limitation is caused by the format of mobile operating systems (do your work on the go, no mouse, etc), and not by the performance of ARM.
As an opposite example, let's look at Safari. A browser is a complex program. And on the iPad Safari works just as well as on the Mac. Moreover, if we take the results of Sunspider (JS benchmark), it turns out that Safari on the iPad is gaining more points.
I think that in everyday tasks (Web, Office, Music/Films) ARM (A10X, A11) and x86 (dual core mobile Intel i7) performance are comparable and equal.
Are there any kinds of tasks where ARM really lags far behind x86? If so, what is the reason for this? What's stopping Apple from releasing a laptop on ARM? They already do same thing with migration from POWER to x86. This is technical restrictions, or just marketing?
(Intended this as a comment since this question is off topic, but it got long..).
Of course you can compare, you just need to be very careful, which most people aren't. The fact that companies publishing (or "leaking") results are biased also doesn't help much.
The common misconception is that you can compare a benchmark across two systems and get a single score for each. That ignores the fact that different systems have different optimization points, most often with regards to power (or "TDP"). What you need to look at is the power/performance curve - this graph shows how the system reacts to more power (raising the frequency, enabling more performance features, etc), and how much it contributes to its performance.
One system can win over the low power range, but lose when the available power increases since it doesn't scale that well (or even stops scaling at some point). This is usually the case with Arm, as most of these CPUs are tuned for low power, while x86 covers a larger domain and scales much better.
If you are forced to observe a single point along the graph (which is a legitimate scenario, for example if you're looking for a CPU for a low-power device), at least make sure the comparison is fair and uses the same power envelope.
There are of course other factors that must be aligned (and sometimes aren't due to negligence or an intention to cheat) - the workload should be the same (i've seen different versions compared..), the compiler should be as close as possible (although generating arm vs x86 code is already a difference, but the compiler intermediate optimizations should be similar. When comparing 2 x86 like intel and AMD you should prefer the same binary, unless you also want to allow machine specific optimizations).
Finally, the system should also be similar, which is not the case when comparing a smartphone against a pc/macbook. The memory could differ, the core count, etc. This could be legitimate difference, but it's not really related to one architecture being better than the other.
the topic is bogus, from the ISA to an application or source code there are many abstraction level and the only metric that we have (execution time, or throughput) depends on many factors that could advantage one or the other: the algorithm choices, the optimization written in source code, the compiler/interpreter implementation/optimizations, the operating system behaviour. So they are not exactly/mathematically comparable.
However, looking at the numbers, and the utility of the mobile application written by talking as a management engeneer, ARM chip seems to be capable of run quite good.
I think the only reason is inertia of standard spread around (if you note microsoft propose a variant of windows running on ARM processors, debian ARM variant are ready https://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst).
the ARMv8 cores seems close to x86/64 ones by looking at raw numbers
note i7-3770k results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second#MIPS
summary of last Armv8 CPU characteristics, note the quantity of decode, dispatch, caches, and compare the last column on cortex A73 to the i7 3770k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ARMv8-A_cores
intel ivy bridge characteristics:
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/ivy_bridge_(client)
A75 details. https://www.anandtech.com/show/11441/dynamiq-and-arms-new-cpus-cortex-a75-a55
the topic of power consumption is complex again, the basic rule that go under all the frequency/tension rule (used and abused) over www is: transistors raise time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_time
There is a fixed time delay in the switching of a transistor, this determinates the maximum frequency that a transistor could switch, and with more of them linked in a cascade way this time sums up in a nonlinear way (need some integration to demonstrate it), as a result 10 years ago to increase the GHz companies try to split in more stage the execution of an operation and runs them (operations) in a pipeline way, even inside the logical pipeline stage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipelining
the raise time depends of physical characteristics (materials and shape of transistors). It can be reduced by increasing the voltage, so the transistor switch faster, as the switching is associated (let me the term) to a the charge/discharge of a capacitor that trigger the transistor channel opening/closing.
These ARM chips are designed to low power applications, by changing the design they could easily gain MHz, but they will use much power, how much? again not comparable if you don't work inside a foundry and have the numbers.
an example of server applications of ARM processors that could be closer to desktop/workstation CPU as power consumption are Cavium or qualcomm Falkor CPUs, and some benchmark report that they are not bad.
What is a typical latency measure for moving a "small amount" of data (like a few kb) from a CPU cache to a coprocessor like the Xeon PHI? I assume that the return trip would take a similar amount of time, but if not, please specify that in your answer.
I know that this depends on a lot of things, but I'm just looking for order-of-magnitude numbers, and I don't have a similar setup to test.
I'm afraid the question, as you ask it really doesn't have an answer. You can ask what the raw bandwidth and latency of a PCIe bus is, but that doesn't really tell you anything. And you wouldn't really want to read a word into cache in the processor then sending it to the coprocessor. You want to keep the processor itself out of all this as much as possible.
At a minimum, what you need to know before you can ask a question like this is what protocol am I using to move the data, where is the data and how big is the data transfer.
I could suggest you read the Intel® Xeon Phi™ Coprocessor System Software Developers Guide if you want to know about the Intel Xeon Phi coprocessor in particular. (I can't speak to any other architectures - I'm ignorant there.) But the System Software Developers Guide is way more detail than you want or need at this point. But if you want a general idea of what is going on, I would tell you that the Intel Xeon Phi coprocessor mostly uses something called SCIF to communicate between the host and coprocessor and you can find out the basics in chapter six of Rezaur's book Intel® Xeon Phi™ Coprocessor Architecture and Tools: The Guide for Application Developers (which you can find on Google books if you want to just read that chapter.)
As I say, I can't speak to any other architecture; I just don't know. But I'm sure you can find information out there.
Data is not transferred from the host's cache to the co-processor. It can be transferred from the host's memory, to the co-processor's.
Keep in mind that this doesn't occur in native execution. It can only be achieved in offload model.
Now, if you want to benchmark the speed of data transfer, it will depend on your motherboard, and the PCIe bus bandwidth/latency.
I read the OpenCL overview, and it states it is suitable for code that runs of CPUs, GPGPUs, DSPs, etc. However, from looking through the command reference, it seems to be all math and image type operations. I didn't see anything for say strings.
This makes me wonder what would you run on a CPU via OpenCL?
Further, I know OpenCL can be used to perform sorting on GPGPUs. But would one ever use it (or, for that matter, a current GPGPU) to perform string processing such as pattern matching, metaphone extraction, dictionary lookup, or anything else that requires the processing of arrays of strings.
EDIT
I noticed that Intel's upcoming Ivy Bridge is touted as "OpenCL compliant" with reference to its graphics units. Does this infer that the CPU cores are not OpenCL compliant, or is there no such inference?
EDIT
In the interests of non-debate and constructiveness, I would appreciate if anyone could point me to official references that would answer my question.
You can think of OpenCL as a combination of a runtime (for device discovery, queueing) and a C-based programming language. This programming language has native vector types and built-in functions and operations for doing all sorts fun stuff to these vectors. This is nice in that you can write a vectorized kernel in OpenCL, and it it the responsibility of the implementation to map that to the actual vector ISA of your hardware.
From this 4/2011 article, which might vanish:
There are two major CPU architectures out there, x86 and ARM, both of
which should soon run OpenCL code.
If you write an OpenCL application that targets both of these architectures, you wouldn't have to worry about writing two versions, one SSE and one NEON. Just write OpenCL C and be done with it. Yes, I know. This assumes the vendor has done his job and written a solid implementation that fully utilizes the underlying ISA. But if he doesn't, complain!
In addition, some CL implementations offer auto-vectorization of scalar kernels, which are usually easier to write. A good auto-vectorizer would give you a solid performance increase for no effort. Since CL kernels are compiled "online," obtaining such a benefit wouldn't require shipping rebuilt code.
No links, but I would assume this is because algorithms that use strings may do a lot of dynamic memory allocation and branching, both of which GPGPUs are not well-suited for. GPGPUs also have a lot in common with vector processing, so doing units of work with different sized blocks of memory (which a string algorithm will generally work on, you usually don't have a homogeneous group of strings), yields poorer performance and is hard to program.
GPUs were designed to do the same work, with little to no branching, on a homogeneous group of data (such as per-vector or per-pixel operations). Algorithms that can mimic this type of behavior are great on GPUs.
This makes me wonder what would you run on a CPU via OpenCL?
I prefer to use ocl to offload work from the cpu to my graphics hardware. Sometimes there is a limitation with my video card, so I like having a backup kernel for cpu use. Such limitations can be memory size, memory bottleneck, low clock speed, or when the pci-e bus gets in the way.
I say I like using a separate kernel for cpu, because I think all kernels should be tweaked to run on their target hardware. I even like to have an openmp backup plan, as most algorithms I use get tested out in this manner ahead of time.
I suppose it is best practice to test out a gpu kernel on the cpu to make sure it runs as expected. If a user of your software has opencl installed, but only a cpu (or a low-end gpu) it's nice to be able to execute the same code on the different devices.
I have studied a few things about instruction re-ordering by processors and Tomasulo's algorithm.
In an attempt to understand this topic bit more I want to know if there is ANY way to (get the trace) see the actual dynamic reordering done for a given program?
I want to give an input program and see the "out of order instruction execution trace" of my program.
I have access to an IBM-P7 machine and an Intel Core2Duo laptop. Also please tell me if there is an easy alternative.
You have no access to actual reordering done inside the CPU (there is no publically known way to enable tracing). But there is some emulators of reordering and some of them can give you useful hints.
For modern Intel CPUs (core 2, nehalem, Sandy and Ivy) there is "Intel(R) Architecture Code Analyzer" (IACA) from Intel. It's homepage is http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-architecture-code-analyzer/
This tool allows you to look how some linear fragment of code will be splitted into micro-operations and how they will be planned into execution Ports. This tool has some limitations and it is only inexact model of CPU u-op reordering and execution.
There are also some "external" tools for emulating x86/x86_84 CPU internals, I can recommend the PTLsim (or derived MARSSx86):
PTLsim models a modern superscalar out of order x86-64 compatible processor core at a configurable level of detail ranging ... down to RTL level models of all key pipeline structures. In addition, all microcode, the complete cache hierarchy, memory subsystem and supporting hardware devices are modeled with true cycle accuracy.
But PTLsim models some "PTL" cpu, not real AMD or Intel CPU. The good news is that this PTL is Out-Of-Order, based on ideas from real cores:
The basic microarchitecture of this model is a combination of design features from the Intel Pentium 4, AMD K8 and Intel Core 2, but incorporates some ideas from IBM Power4/Power5 and Alpha EV8.
Also, in arbeit http://es.cs.uni-kl.de/publications/datarsg/Senf11.pdf is said that JavaHASE applet is capable of emulating different simple CPUs and even supports Tomasulo example.
Unfortunately, unless you work for one of these companies, the answer is no. Intel/AMD processors don't even schedule the (macro) instructions you give them. They first convert those instructions into micro operations and then schedule those. What these micro instructions are and the entire process of instruction reordering is a closely guarded secret, so they don't exactly want you to know what is going on.
I have a highly threaded program but I believe it is not able to scale well across multiple cores because it is already saturating all the memory bandwidth.
Is there any tool out there which allows to measure how much of the memory bandwidth is being used?
Edit: Please note that typical profilers show things like memory leaks and memory allocation, which I am not interested in.
I am only whether the memory bandwidth is being saturated or not.
If you have a recent Intel processor, you might try to use Intel(r) Performance Counter Monitor: http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-performance-counter-monitor/ It can directly measure consumed memory bandwidth from the memory controllers.
I'd recommend the Visual Studio Sample Profiler which can collect sample events on specific hardware counters. For example, you can choose to sample on cache misses. Here's an article explaining how to choose the CPU counter, though there are other counters you can play with as well.
it would be hard to find a tool that measured memory bandwidth utilization for your application.
But since the issue you face is a suspected memory bandwidth problem, you could try and measure if your application is generating a lot of page faults / sec, which would definitely mean that you are no where near the theoretical memory bandwidth.
You should also measure how cache friendly your algorithms are. If they are thrashing the cache, your memory bandwidth utilization will be severely hampered. Google "measuring cache misses" on good sources that tells you how to do this.
It isn't possible to properly measure memory bus utilisation with any kind of software-only solution. (it used to be, back in the 80's or so. But then we got piplining, cache, out-of-order execution, multiple cores, non-uniform memory architectues with multiple busses, etc etc etc).
You absolutely have to have hardware monitoring the memory bus, to determine how 'busy' it is.
Fortunately, most PC platforms do have some, so you just need the drivers and other software to talk to it:
wenjianhn comments that there is a project specficially for intel hardware (which they call the Processor Counter Monitor) at https://github.com/opcm/pcm
For other architectures on Windows, I am not sure. But there is a project (for linux) which has a grab-bag of support for different architectures at https://github.com/RRZE-HPC/likwid
In principle, a computer engineer could attach a suitable oscilloscope to almost any PC and do the monitoring 'directly', although this is likely to require both a suitably-trained computer engineer as well as quite high performance test instruments (read: both very costly).
If you try this yourself, know that you'll likely need instruments or at least analysis which is aware of the protocol of the bus you're intending to monitor for utilisation.
This can sometimes be really easy, with some busses - eg old parallel FIFO hardware, which usually has a separate wire for 'fifo full' and another for 'fifo empty'.
Such chips are used usually between a faster bus and a slower one, on a one-way link. The 'fifo full' signal, even it it normally occasionally triggers, can be monitored for excessively 'long' levels: For the example of a USB 2.0 Hi-Speed link, this happens when the OS isn't polling the USB fifo hardware on time. Measuring the frequency and duration of these 'holdups' then lets you measure bus utilisation, but only for this USB 2.0 bus.
For a PC memory bus, I guess you could also try just monitoring how much power your RAM interface is using - which perhaps may scale with use. This might be quite difficult to do, but you may 'get lucky'. You want the current of the supply which feeds VccIO for the bus. This should actually work much better for newer PC hardware than those ancient 80's systems (which always just ran at full power when on).
A fairly ordinary oscilloscope is enough for either of those examples - you just need one that can trigger only on 'pulses longer than a given width', and leave it running until it does, which is a good way to do 'soak testing' over long periods.
You monitor utiliation either way by looking for the change in 'idle' time.
But modern PC memory busses are quite a bit more complex, and also much faster.
To do it directly by tapping the bus, you'll need at least an oscilloscope (and active probes) designed explicitly for monitoring the generation of DDR bus your PC has, along with the software analysis option (usually sold separately) to decode the protocol enough to figure out the kind of activity which is occuring on it, from which you can figure out what kind of activity you want to measure as 'idle'.
You may even need a motherboard designed to allow you to make those measurements also.
This isn't so staightfoward as just looking for periods of no activity - all DRAM needs regular refresh cycles at the very least, which may or may not happen along with obvious bus activity (some DRAM's do it automatically, some need a specific command to trigger it, some can continue to address and transfer data from banks not in refresh, some can't, etc).
So the instrument needs to be able to analyse the data deeply enough for you extract how busy it is.
Your best, and simplest bet is to find a PC hardware (CPU) vendor who has tools which do what you want, and buy that hardware so you can use those tools.
This might even involve running your application in a VM, so you can benefit from better tools in a different OS hosting it.
To this end, you'll likely want to try Linux KVM (yes, even for Windows - there are windows guest drivers for it), and also pin down your VM to specific CPUs, whilst you also configure linux to avoid putting other jobs on those same CPUs.