Power Virus & Thermal Test: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Power Virus & Thermal Test centers on peak power excursion, thermal throttle duty cycle, and reliability margin. The objective is to connect profiler evidence to root-cause mechanism and release-safe action.

GPU debug is mechanism-first. Lock revisions, isolate first failing workload, then prove one hypothesis before applying broad tuning.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Power Virus & Thermal Test

peak power excursion, thermal throttle duty cycle, and reliability margin regressed
        |
  reproducible on replay?
      /              \
    no                yes
    |                  |
env/test noise    counter triage
                   |
             compute-bound or memory-bound?
                /                  \
             compute            memory/interconnect
             issue stalls       cache/NoC/DRAM stalls

Stop at first failing mechanism, then patch.

1. Freeze workload seed, compiler, driver, firmware, and hardware tags.

2. Identify first failing metric and where it appears in timeline.

3. Classify bottleneck domain: scheduler, execution, memory, interconnect, or thermal.

4. Build one focused reproducer that isolates dominant mechanism.

5. Patch smallest owner-controlled fix.

6. Re-run quality, performance, and stability matrix.

Review memo template

GPU DESIGN REVIEW MEMO - Verification, Performance & Bring-up / Power Virus & Thermal Test

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: peak power excursion, thermal throttle duty cycle, and reliability margin
   - Failing workload or scene: <name>
   - Impacted stage: <warp scheduling, memory hierarchy, graphics stage, interconnect>
   - Revision tags: <kernel/driver/compiler/firmware/hardware>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Stress workloads intentionally maximize switching and memory traffic to validate guardbands, thermal controls, and package-level stability.
   - Competing hypotheses: <divergence, memory coalescing, scheduling, thermal throttling>
   - Missing evidence: <counter capture, trace, topology heatmap, timing report>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <kernel/config/RTL/policy update>
   - Expected movement: <throughput, frame-time tail, perf-per-watt>
   - Regression risk: scheduler fairness, cache contention, thermal behavior, software compatibility

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: stress test log, thermal throttle timeline, and guardband validation report
   - Required owners: silicon validation lead, power architect, reliability owner
   - Final decision: ship, bounded rollout, rollback, or escalate

GPU deep dive

Performance claims need verification-grade reproducibility, not one-off profiler screenshots.

Concept diagram

PERF VERIFICATION LOOP

benchmark -> profile -> optimize -> verify correctness -> regress

Metric graph

RELEASE READINESS

benchmarks stable     █████████
accuracy gates pass   ████████
perf regressions open ███

Reports and artifacts

• golden benchmark suite

• deterministic replay log

• perf regression dashboard

• accuracy/perf gate status

Mini case study

A kernel passed microbenchmarks but failed production SLA due to host-device sync overhead hidden from isolated tests.

Debug branches

• Enforce end-to-end benchmarks alongside kernels

• Pair every speedup with accuracy diff checks

• Promote only reproducible profiler baselines

Senior review question

Ask: which metric and benchmark pairing proves this topic is truly closed in production context?

Key takeaways

• Always pair micro-kernel metrics with end-to-end workload impact.

• Lock toolchain, driver, and launch metadata before comparing performance results.

Common pitfalls

• Optimizing occupancy without checking memory-system saturation.

• Comparing profiler captures from different driver or compiler builds.

• Declaring wins without reproducible accuracy and performance gates.

Principal GPU review addendum

Power Virus & Thermal Test is not just a definition to memorize. In a real GPU program it becomes an interaction between software shape, compiler mapping, warp execution, memory movement, interconnect policy, and physical limits. The first senior move is to name which layer is being exercised before interpreting a counter.

Stress workloads intentionally maximize switching and memory traffic to validate guardbands, thermal controls, and package-level stability. This mechanism matters because GPUs are throughput machines: a small inefficiency repeated across lanes, warps, SMs, frames, or dispatches can dominate product performance even when a unit-level diagram looks balanced.

Use peak power excursion, thermal throttle duty cycle, and reliability margin as an entry point, not as the conclusion. A metric shift only becomes actionable after it is tied to a workload slice, a profiler capture, an architectural path, and a reproducible artifact such as stress test log, thermal throttle timeline, and guardband validation report.

Verification and performance analysis must converge on the same bottleneck narrative. The review posture is therefore evidence-first: explain what the kernel or graphics workload asked for, how the GPU mapped it onto hardware, where useful work stopped, and which owner can change the smallest boundary safely.

In review, insist on a concrete chain from workload to hardware behavior: workload shape -> compiler/runtime mapping -> warp or pipeline behavior -> memory/fabric pressure -> measured product impact. That chain prevents generic GPU tuning advice from replacing engineering evidence.