On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 21:38:11 +0300
ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>
> If the current GPU frquency is below RPe, and we're asked to increase
> it, just go directly to RPe. This should provide better performance
> faster than letting the frequency trickle up in response to the up
> threshold interrupts.
>
> For now just do it for VLV, since that matches quite closely how VLV
> used to operate when the rps delayed timer kept things at RPe always.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 62f8b2d..d6bd0d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -699,9 +699,17 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
>
> - if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD)
> + if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD) {
> new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay + 1;
> - else
> +
> + /*
> + * For better performance, jump directly
> + * to RPe if we're below it.
> + */
> + if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev) &&
> + dev_priv->rps.cur_delay < dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay)
> + new_delay = dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay;
> + } else
> new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_delay - 1;
>
> /* sysfs frequency interfaces may have snuck in while servicing the
Yeah, seems reasonable. Going to RP1 on other platforms might be a
good approximation of this.
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
