Vimal Kumar

since this issue talks about kepler's power metrics, should this be a kepler issue or model-server issue?

> We should further investigate more metrics since CPU time is not enough for modeling. can you please elaborate this more? do we need to use more metrics provided by...

each time, i have to pull logs manually, reduces the usefulness of k9s

https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler/issues/1660#issuecomment-2265665980

on latest [main](https://github.com/sustainable-computing-io/kepler/tree/cdcaf00ba6f33b1c3d7fb76fa077332890b1b0ab), if machine is loaded with stress-ng, the kepler cpu usage spikes. In comparison, the kepler before ringbuffer does not show increase in cpu if machine is loaded....

comparing with old code, some kepler cpu usage spike is understandable since some processing ( 3 map lookup, 2 update, 1 delete) was happening in kernel context and cpu cycles...

i ran some `perf stat` tests to check impact of kepler on context switch time. idea being that since kepler traps sched_switch and does some processing, it should have some...

should we start a new branch for this change?

AFAIK CPU isolation removes a set of CPUs from scheduling algorithm of kernel. Kepler adds a probe to kernel's `sched_switch` tracepoint to calculate how much cpu time/cpu cycles a process...

@rootfs i am really curious to know why it worked with `libbpf` but not with `bcc`. thats the only difference between two kepler versions. the approach to calculate the cpu...