On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:55:42PM +0300, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:15:52PM +0300, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:54:54PM +0000, Szwichtenberg, Radoslaw wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 12:44 -0700, jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > This completes the change started by: > > > > > > > > commit 39cccab83b7c515a2b57abe679a8cb304c8933ef > > > > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Fri May 19 09:41:40 2017 +0100 > > > > > > > > igt/pm_rps: Allow CUR to be greater than MAX (overclocking) > > > > > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg <radoslaw.szwichtenberg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Pushed. Thanks for the patch and the review. > > > > Excerpt from CONTRIBUTING: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please use --subject-prefix="PATCH i-g-t" so that i-g-t patches are easily > > identified in the massive amount mails on intel-gfx. To ensure this is always > > done, autogen.sh will run: > > > > git config format.subjectprefix "PATCH i-g-t" > > > > on its first invocation. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Lack of proper prefix breaks filtering / patchwork and makes changes > > harder to track, and effectilvely it takes longer to get the patch in. > > > > The autogen.sh thing is a recent addition. > > Hey Jeff, > > The change has been reverted. > > At first the it looked like a sensible folloup to previous changes and > it even got r-bed, but as pointed out by Michal, this constraint still > should hold, as it's checked in a non-boost scenario. > > It hides bug introduced into the kernel by the commit: > "drm/i915: Define a separate variable and control for RPS waitboost frequency" > > for GuC submission path, as the check below always holds true as we have > waiters all the time: > if (client_boost || any_waiters) max = hw_max; > > What was the point of this change? > Were you aware of the fail in the guc_submission scenario? > > -- > Cheers, > Arek Hi Arek. Yes, this was prompted by a regression of this subtest in Yocto which uses GuC submission. I root caused it to this same i915 commit from Chris but incorrectly thought that the new "policy" was that sysfs max freq could be ignored in pretty much any situation. I understand now that it should be ignored in only boost and real user wait situations (not those triggered by GuC). So I do agree with this revert. Is there an i915 fix coming soon? Chris? Jeff _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
