On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:54:39AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> 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>
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
