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). In this sense, I think it is okay to call it pkg level rapl for both Intel and AMD. thanks, rui
