Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-07 12:54:47) > > On 07/02/2018 12:34, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-07 12:24:24) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> We can use perf reported timestamps to potentially get a more accurate > >> frequency average. > >> > >> Lets see if this improves the situation for sporadic failures like on APL: > >> > >> Frequency: min=100, max=750, boost=750 MHz > >> Min frequency: requested 90.0, actual 90.0 > >> Max frequency: requested 749.8, actual 647.9 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Even if it doesn't using the embedded timestamp makes a lot more sense, > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks. > > It will definitely not fix everything. For instance I think that on one > SKL GT2 I see max frequency being reported as 1000 MHz while in > actuality it can only reach 950 Mhz. What to do one machine like that > one is the question. The lies the CPU tells. We will have to assume that it isn't clamped by more than a bin or so, and may be just assert a one-sided tolerance i.e. can't be greater than max, but is allowed ~100MHz less? -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
