Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper empirically evaluates the overhead of seven RAPL-based energy monitoring tools at 1 kHz polling frequency using NAS benchmarks. It finds that existing user-space tools introduce significant time overhead (0.25% to 46.75%), primarily due to system call and inline math overhead. The authors' custom tools, designed to minimize these overheads, achieve performance closer to a no-tool baseline, demonstrating the potential for optimization.
Naive RAPL-based energy monitoring can add nearly 50% overhead to your measurements, but optimized tools can keep it negligible.
The Running Average Power Limit (RAPL) interface is widely used to estimate software energy consumption via CPU and DRAM counters, but tool design differences and high-frequency polling can introduce measurement overhead, namely, extra time and energy consumed by the tool itself.This paper quantifies the impact of RAPL-based tools on high-frequency (1 kHz) energy monitoring and investigates mitigation strategies. We conduct two controlled experiments: the first evaluates seven tools, including a user-space application and a kernel module developed by the authors, against a no-tool baseline, using six NAS Benchmark functions to quantify overhead. The second experiment isolates and times key functions for polling Model-Specific Registers (MSRs) (rdmsr and sys/proc_read) to estimate their execution latencies and identify potential slowdowns. The results show that existing user-space tools can introduce substantial time overhead at 1 kHz, whereas our tools significantly reduce system call overhead and inline math overhead. The time overhead of existing tools ranges from 0.25% to 46.75%. Our solutions maintain time overhead levels close to the baseline. We also find that system calls are slower than rdmsr, which in turn is slower than traditionally long-running instructions like cpuid. These findings indicate that RAPL-based energy measurement can be substantially improved by simplifying tool design and employing lower-level instructions to access RAPL values. Our findings provide guidance for practitioners on how to develop high-frequency energy profiling tools, show possible situations that can skew energy values, and demonstrate that access to RAPL values can be faster using specific techniques.
