(no title)
naveen_k | 11 months ago
The current implementation uniformly sets max frequency for all 128 cores, but I'm working on per-core frequency control that would allow much more granular optimization. I'll definitely measure aggregate consumption with your suggestion versus my current implementation to see the difference.
schiffern|11 months ago
Ideally these goal are balanced (in some 'efficient' way) against matching electricity prices. It's not either/or, you want to do both.
Besides better amortizing the embodied energy, improving compute utilization could also mean increasing the quality of the compute workloads, ie doing tasks with high external benefits.
Love this project! Thanks for sharing.
[1] https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/embodied-energy-in-comp...
KennyBlanken|11 months ago
The stuff the chip and motherboard do, completely built-in, is light-years ahead of what you're doing. Your power-saving techniques (capping max frequency) are more than a decade out of date.
You'll get better performance and power savings to boot.
naveen_k|11 months ago
That said, I'm definitely interested in learning more about processor-specific optimizations for EPYC. If there are server-focused equivalents to what you've mentioned that would work better than frequency capping, I'd love to explore them!
ac29|11 months ago
It lets you set specific power consumption limits in W instead of attempting to do the same by restricting maximum core frequencies (which could also be useful in addition to overall power limits).
csdvrx|11 months ago
This core will get to sleep less than the others.
You can also use the CPU "geometry" (which cores share cache) to set max frequency on its neighboring cores first, before recruiting the other cores
naveen_k|11 months ago