Modern processors support different low power states including package low power states in which various sub-components of the processor are either powered down or clock gated. Typically in a package low power state, cache memories of the processor are flushed and powered down. Flushing the cache memory removes context that a core might try to access on a subsequent wake up. If on wake up the core seeks to access content that was flushed from the cache, the core pays a penalty of staying active and powered on waiting for the data to be fetched from system memory. This extra energy spent by the core in a powered on state may outweigh the benefit of the energy saved keeping the flushed ways powered down.
Embodiments provide a technique to determine an optimal portion of a cache memory, e.g., a number of ways of a last level cache memory (LLC), to maintain powered (kept open) while a processor including the cache memory is placed in a package low power state. In some embodiments, this determination can be based on how useful the last level cache is to core activity. As such, a cache memory can have a dynamically variable size depending on its usefulness to core operation.
In this way, a controllable amount of a cache memory of a multicore processor can be placed into a low power state during periods in which power consumption of the processor is to be reduced. More particularly, when the processor is placed into a package low power state such that all cores of the processor are in a low power state, at least some of the associated cache memory of the processor can also be placed into a low power state and thus the size of the cache is dynamically changed. However, even in this package low power state it is possible to maintain at least a portion of the cache in a powered on state such that context associated with one or more cores of the processor can be maintained and stored in the cache memory. In this way, upon wakeup from the package low power state, this state is available to the core without incurring the performance and power penalty of obtaining the state from a system memory coupled to the processor.
In many embodiments, power management of a processor for optimizing system power can be performed in relation to an Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) standard, e.g., Rev. 3.0b, published Oct. 10, 2006. An ACPI implementation allows a processor core to be in different power consumption states, generally referred to as so-called C1 to Cn states. When a core is active, it runs at a so-called C0 state, and when the core is idle it may be placed in a core low power state, a so-called core non-zero C-state (e.g., C1-C6 states). When all cores of a multicore processor are in a core low power state, the processor can be placed in a package low power state, such as a package C6 low power state. In addition, embodiments provide for a deeper package low power state, referred to herein as a package C7 state, in which greater power savings can be achieved. In this state, all cores can be power gated, additional functional units such as a graphics domain can be power gated, and system agent circuitry including a power controller and other logic can be run at a lower frequency of operation. Furthermore, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a shared cache memory such as an LLC can be power gated, or one or more portions of the shared cache memory can be maintained with a retention voltage, which may be a lower voltage than an operating voltage, to keep a context or state of one or more cores so that a reduced latency on wakeup can be realized.
Although some embodiments are applicable to a multicore processor, understand the scope of the present invention is not limited in this regard and other embodiments may be for use in a multi-domain processor. As used herein the term “domain” is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point. As an example, a multi-domain processor including multiple cores can further include other non-core processing engines such as fixed function units, graphics engines, and so forth. Such processor can include at least two independent domains, one associated with the cores (referred to as a core domain) and one associated with a graphics engine (referred to as a graphics domain). Although many implementations of a multi-domain processor can be formed on a single semiconductor die, other implementations can be realized by a multi-chip package in which different domains can be present on different semiconductor die of a single package.
As will be described herein, in various embodiments a determination can occur as to an amount of cache memory to place into a low power state. Prior to such low power state entry, the data of the cache portion being placed in the low power state is flushed to system memory. Instead a portion of the cache memory to remain powered is not flushed, such that the computing and power expense of performing the flush can be avoided. This determination can be based, in many implementations on a memory boundedness of a workload that is executing on the processor. Different measures of memory boundedness can be made. In one embodiment a measure of memory boundedness can be based on information regarding a measure of pendency of instructions in an order buffer as compared to a duration of time the processor spends in an active state. Of course other measures of determining boundedness can be used, such as number of misses sent to a last level cache from a core during a time interval.
For example, for an evaluation interval, a ratio can be determined between the number of cycles that a load operation is pending in a memory order buffer compared to the number of cycles that the core is in an active state during this evaluation interval. To effect such analysis, each entry of the memory order buffer can include, in addition to a field for instruction type (e.g., load or store), address and other fields, a counter field that accumulates for each cycle that the instruction is pending in the entry. To smooth out the data of this ratio, an average of the pending duration in the memory order buffer for all pending load operations during an evaluation interval can be compared to a count of the number of cycles during the evaluation interval that the processor was in an active state. Accordingly, the memory boundedness can be determined according to Equation 1:
total cycles outstanding load pendency in order buffer/total cycles in active state [EQ. 1].
This Equation 1 thus generates a ratio of average order buffer residency to active state residency. Thus in this example, the calculation results in a ratio of the cycles a core was waiting for a load pending in an order buffer and the number of clocks that the core was in an active state. This gives a percentage of how memory bound a core (or a workload running on the core) is. If the number of cycles a load is pending is equal to the number of cycles in the active state, the workload is said to be 100% memory bound. Note that a similar analysis can be performed for a non-core domain, e.g., a graphics engine based on load pendency in a buffer between one or more graphics execution units and a memory controller.
Embodiments can leverage this information regarding memory boundedness to determine an appropriate portion of a cache memory to maintain in a powered state during a package low power state. In this package low power state, all cores of the processor can be placed into a low power mode and data stored in one or more portions of the cache memory can be flushed to system memory and these portions are placed in a low power state. In some embodiments, this low power state may be a power gated state in which no power is provided and thus no leakage current is consumed. However, one or more other portions, as determined above, can be maintained with a retention voltage to thus maintain their state.
Although embodiments can be applied to different cache memory systems, many implementations can be used for the LLC, which is the uppermost hierarchy of coherent static random access memory (SRAM) cache available on a processor die. This cache memory can be organized into sets and ways, e.g., a 4 megabytes (MBs) cache that is 16 way set associative has 16 ways×256 sets. For sake of discussion, ways are the smallest level of granularity at which a portion of the cache can be flushed or powered down.
The amount of memory bandwidth used by an executing core is a function of the workload that is running on the core. In some embodiments, a processor can include, e.g., in each entry of a buffer such as a memory order buffer (MOB), a counter to track the number of clock cycles that a load is pending in the MOB. The higher the number of cycles a load is pending in the MOB, the less useful work the core can be doing. In other words the core is said to be memory bound. If the core is memory bound one course of alleviating the memory boundedness is to allow the core to use more of the LLC. The more LLC accessed by the core, the longer the latency to flush all the cache contents when powering down the cache. The less memory bound a core is (or) the more LLC ways open, the lower its active state residency and hence the lower energy spent while the core is active. The greater number of LLC ways that are opened, the longer the latency to flush the cache and hence a greater energy cost is incurred in entering into a deep package low power state. As a result, embodiments can maximize the overall energy efficiency by balancing and trading off energy spent in flushing the cache to enter into a deep package low power state with energy saved running the cores for a shorter duration when they are active. To perform this balance, embodiments may predict how memory bound a workload is.
Referring now to
Thus as seen, at the conclusion of this evaluation interval, it can be determined whether the amount of time during the evaluation interval the processor spent in an active power state (e.g., of a C2 or higher power state) is greater than a threshold time interval (diamond 120) which in one embodiment can be on the order of 2 ms. If so, this means the processor is actively handling a high workload and accordingly, control passes to block 125 where the entire cache memory can be powered on. More specifically, at block 125 PCU logic can control the cache memory such that all ways of the cache memory are enabled, allowing the full cache size to be used (assuming it was not previously fully powered). Note that the C2 state may correspond to a low latency lower power state in which instructions are not retired while a core is waiting for a return of data, e.g., from a memory hierarchy.
If instead during the evaluation interval the package was not in an active power state for greater than this threshold time interval, control passes to block 130 where a memory dependence of the workload of the processor can be calculated. As discussed above this determination can be made in one embodiment by calculating a ratio of memory boundedness using an average length of residency in the memory order buffer and the length of time the processor was in an active state for the operation interval. Based on this calculation, at 140 it can be determined whether the memory dependency value is greater than a first threshold. This first threshold may be a level that above which the full cache memory is to be enabled. In some embodiments, this threshold can be set at between approximately 50% to 70%, where the memory dependency value is the ratio described above. Thus if the ratio is higher than this threshold, control again passes to block 125 as discussed above. If instead the memory dependency value is lower than this first threshold, control passes to diamond 150 where it can be determined whether the memory dependency value is greater than a second threshold. In some embodiments, this threshold can be set at between approximately 30% to 50%. This second threshold may be a value at which an additional portion of the cache memory is to be enabled. Thus as shown at block 160, another way of the cache memory can be enabled. As a result, a greater portion of the cache memory is available for use and thus the memory boundedness of the workload should improve. In some embodiments, the determination of which way to be enabled can be based on how many ways are allocated to cores of a core domain versus ways allocated to a graphics domain and how memory bound each of the domains are.
Still referring to
Referring now to Table 1, shown is pseudocode of a LLC shrink/expand algorithm in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As seen, the algorithm defines the following parameters: evaluation_interval, which is the interval over which a determination of memory boundedness is performed; open_one_way_threshold specifies a threshold level of how memory bounded a workload is to be during an evaluation interval to open one additional way in the LLC; open_all_way_threshold, which specifies a threshold level of how memory bounded a workload is to be during the evaluation interval to immediately open all LLC ways; and close_one_way_threshold, which specifies the memory bounded threshold the workload is to exceed to close one LLC way. These parameters can be tuned on a given platform to yield best energy efficiency and performance tradeoff.
Embodiments thus provide a workload memory demand aware mechanism to size the last level cache and to maximize processor energy efficiency. More specifically a mechanism can be provided to tradeoff latency and energy cost to enter deep package low power state with energy consumed while active. Choosing the optimal cache size on workloads that enter into and exit from deep package low processor states may provide better energy efficiency and longer battery life.
Referring now to
In various embodiments, power control unit 355 may include a cache size control logic 359, which may be a logic to perform dynamic control of a size of shared cache 330 to remain in a powered on state during a package low power state. Accordingly, based on a workload executing on the cores, logic 359 can determine an appropriate amount of shared cache 340 to remain in a powered on state, both during normal operation and during a package low power state. For example, the LLC hit rate or amount of bandwidth being consumed from the LLC when a core is active can be used to determine the cache size. The duration of time that the package is in a package low power state (e.g., a package C6 state) in turn can be used to determine whether it is appropriate to reduce the cache size and transition into a lower package low power state (e.g., a package C7 state).
With further reference to
Referring now to
In general, each core 410 may further include low level caches in addition to various execution units and additional processing elements. In turn, the various cores may be coupled to each other and to a shared cache memory formed of a plurality of units of a LLC 4400-440n. In various embodiments, LLC 440 may be shared amongst the cores and the graphics engine, as well as various media processing circuitry. As seen, a ring interconnect 430 thus couples the cores together, and provides interconnection between the cores, graphics domain 420 and system agent circuitry 450. In one embodiment, interconnect 430 can be part of the core domain. However in other embodiments the ring interconnect can be of its own domain.
In the embodiment of
As further seen in
Embodiments may be implemented in many different system types. Referring now to
Still referring to
Furthermore, chipset 590 includes an interface 592 to couple chipset 590 with a high performance graphics engine 538, by a P-P interconnect 539. In turn, chipset 590 may be coupled to a first bus 516 via an interface 596. As shown in
Embodiments may be implemented in code and may be stored on a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions which can be used to program a system to perform the instructions. The storage medium may include, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, solid state drives (SSDs), compact disk read-only memories (CD-ROMs), compact disk rewritables (CD-RWs), and magneto-optical disks, semiconductor devices such as read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs) such as dynamic random access memories (DRAMs), static random access memories (SRAMs), erasable programmable read-only memories (EPROMs), flash memories, electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), magnetic or optical cards, or any other type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions.
While the present invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those skilled in the art will appreciate numerous modifications and variations therefrom. It is intended that the appended claims cover all such modifications and variations as fall within the true spirit and scope of this present invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/044,994, filed Jul. 25, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/270,208, filed Sep. 20, 2016, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,067,553, issued Sep. 4, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/840,639, filed Aug. 31, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,471,490, issued Oct. 18, 2016, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/285,465, filed Oct. 31, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,158,693, issued Oct. 13, 2015, the content of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5163153 | Cole et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5287292 | Kenny et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5522087 | Hsiang | May 1996 | A |
5590341 | Matter | Dec 1996 | A |
5621250 | Kim | Apr 1997 | A |
5931950 | Hsu | Aug 1999 | A |
6748546 | Mirov et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6792392 | Knight | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6823516 | Cooper | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6829713 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6908227 | Fusu et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6996728 | Singh | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7010708 | Ma | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7043649 | Terrell | May 2006 | B2 |
7093147 | Farkas et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7111179 | Girson et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7127560 | Cohen | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7146514 | Kaushik et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7194643 | Gonzalez et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7272730 | Acquaviva et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7412615 | Yokota et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7434073 | Magklis | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7437270 | Song et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7454632 | Kardach et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7529956 | Stufflebeam | May 2009 | B2 |
7539885 | Ma | May 2009 | B2 |
7574321 | Kernahan et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7596464 | Hermerding et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603577 | Yamaji et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7606976 | Raghuvanshi | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7624215 | Axford et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7730340 | Hu et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7752467 | Tokue | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7797512 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7870407 | Branover | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7966511 | Naveh et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8015427 | Miller et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8412971 | Branover | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8601288 | Brinks et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8725953 | Paver et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8943334 | Kumar et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8949637 | Knight et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9021207 | Kalamatianos | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9158693 | Ananthakrishnan | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9471490 | Ananthakrishnan | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9710041 | Gendler | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9842082 | Varma | Dec 2017 | B2 |
10067553 | Ananthakrishnan | Sep 2018 | B2 |
20010044909 | Oh et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020194509 | Plante et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030061383 | Zilka | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20040030940 | Espinoza-Ibarra et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040064752 | Kazachinsky et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040098560 | Storvik et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040139356 | Ma | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040268166 | Farkas et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050022038 | Kaushik et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033881 | Yao | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050046400 | Rotem | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050132238 | Nanja | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050223258 | Watts | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050288886 | Therlen et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060006166 | Chen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060041766 | Adachi | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060050670 | Hillyard et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060053326 | Naveh | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059286 | Bertone et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060069936 | Lint et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060117202 | Magklis et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060184287 | Belady et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070005995 | Kardach et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016817 | Albonesi et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070079294 | Knight | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070101174 | Tsukimori et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070106428 | Omizo et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070106827 | Boatright et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070156992 | Jahagirdar | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168151 | Kernahan et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070214342 | Newburn | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070234083 | Lee | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070239398 | Song et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070245163 | Lu et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070260895 | Aguilar et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080005603 | Deep et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028240 | Arai et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080028778 | Millet | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080077282 | Hartman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080077813 | Keller et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080136397 | Gunther et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080250260 | Tomita | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080307240 | Dahan et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006871 | Liu et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090070605 | Nijhawan et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090150695 | Song et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150696 | Song et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090158061 | Schmitz et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090158067 | Bodas et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090172375 | Rotem et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090172428 | Lee | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090235105 | Branover et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090235108 | Gold et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090271141 | Coskun et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090271646 | Talwar et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090313489 | Gunther et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090320031 | Song | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100058078 | Branover et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100115309 | Carvalho et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100146513 | Song | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100191997 | Dodeja et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100250856 | Owen et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100332927 | Kurts et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110022865 | Gunther et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110072429 | Celeskey et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110093733 | Kruglick | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110154090 | Dixon et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110161627 | Song et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110283124 | Branover et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120053897 | Naffziger | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120066535 | Naffziger | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120096288 | Bates et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120110352 | Branover et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120114010 | Branch | May 2012 | A1 |
20120116599 | Arndt et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120173907 | Moses et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20130246825 | Shannon | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130256825 | Humbert | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140108734 | Kitchin | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20150268711 | Ramani | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150310902 | Olorode et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160252943 | Varma | Sep 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101351759 | Jan 2009 | CN |
101403944 | Apr 2009 | CN |
101010655 | May 2010 | CN |
1 282 030 | May 2003 | EP |
10-2006-012846 | Dec 2006 | KR |
201040701 | Nov 2010 | TW |
I342498 | May 2011 | TW |
201120628 | Jun 2011 | TW |
Entry |
---|
David L. Hill, et al., “The Uncore: A Modular Approach to Feeding the High-Performance Cores,” Intel Technology Journal, 2010, vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 30-49. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/282,947, filed Oct. 27, 2011, entitled “Controlling Operating Frequency of a Core Domain via a Non-Core Domain of a Multi-Domain Processor” by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. (2493). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/285,414, filed Oct. 31, 2011, entitled “Controlling a Turbo Mode Frequency of a Processor,” by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. (2494). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/225,677, filed Sep. 6, 2011, entitled “Dynamically Allocating a Power Budget Over Multiple Domains of a Processor,” by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. (2495). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/247,580, filed Sep. 28, 2011, entitled “Controlling Temperature of Multiple Domains of a Multi-Domain Processor,” by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. (2496). |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/282,896, filed Oct. 27, 2011 entitled “Enabling a Non-Core Domain to Control Memory Bandwidth,” by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. (2492). |
Intel Developer Forum, IDF2010, Opher Kahn, et al., “Intel Next Generation Microarchitecture Codename Sandy Bridge: New Processor Innovations,” Sep. 13, 2010, 58 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/223,794, filed Dec. 18, 2018, entitled “Dynamically Controlling Cache Size to Maximize Energy Efficiency”, by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/223,818, filed Dec. 18, 2018, entitled “Dynamically Controlling Cache Size to Maximize Energy Efficiency”, by Avinash N. Ananthakrishnan, et al. |
SPEC-Power and Performance, Design Overview V1.10, Standard Performance Information Corp., Oct. 21, 2008, 6 pages. |
Intel Technology Journal, “Power and Thermal Management in the Intel Core Duo Processor,” May 15, 2006, pp. 109-122. |
Anoop Iyer, et al., “Power and Performance Evaluation of Globally Asynchronous Locally Synchronous Processors,” 2002, pp. 1-11. |
Greg Semeraro, et al., “Hiding Synchronization Delays in a GALS Processor Microarchitecture,” 2004, pp. 1-13. |
Joan-Manuel Parcerisa, et al., “Efficient Interconnects for Clustered Microarchitectures,” 2002, pp. 1-10. |
Grigorios Magklis, et al., “Profile-Based Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scalling for a Multiple Clock Domain Microprocessor,” 2003, pp. 1-12. |
Greg Semeraro, et al., “Dynamic Frequency and Voltage Control for a Multiple Clock Domain Architecture,” 2002, pp. 1-12. |
Greg Semeraro, “Energy-Efficient Processor Design Using Multiple Clock Domains with Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling,” 2002, pp. 29-40. |
Diana Marculescu, “Application Adaptive Energy Efficient Clustered Architectures,” 2004, pp. 344-349. |
L. Benini, et al., “System-Level Dynamic Power Management,” 1999, pp. 23-31. |
Ravindra Jejurikar, et al., “Leakage Aware Dynamic Voltage Scaling for Real-Time Embedded Systems,” 2004, pp. 275-280. |
Ravindra Jejurikar, et al., “Dynamic Slack Reclamation With Procrastination Scheduling in Real-Time Embedded Systems,” 2005, pp. 13-17. |
R. Todling, et al., “Some Strategies for Kalman Filtering and Smoothing,” 1996, pp. 1-21. |
R.E. Kalman, “A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems,” 1960, pp. 1-12. |
Intel Corporation, “Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer's Manual,” vol. 3B: System Programming Guide, Part 2, Apr. 2016, Chapter 14 Power and Thermal Management (14.1-14.9.5), 39 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 9, 2019 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/223,818, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 26, 2019 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/223,794. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 25, 2019 and Reply to Office Action filed Sep. 24, 2019 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/223,818. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190235611 A1 | Aug 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16044994 | Jul 2018 | US |
Child | 16382320 | US | |
Parent | 15270208 | Sep 2016 | US |
Child | 16044994 | US | |
Parent | 14840639 | Aug 2015 | US |
Child | 15270208 | US | |
Parent | 13285465 | Oct 2011 | US |
Child | 14840639 | US |