On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 13:19:16 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > Hi Rodrigo, > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:30:59AM -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 11:11:53 -0800, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 1/8/2025 6:13 AM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > The Balancer and DCC strategies were left off on a fear that > > > > these strategies would conflict with the i915's waitboost. > > > > However, these strategies are only active in certain conditions where > > > > the system is TDP limited. So, they don't conflict, but help the > > > > waitboost by guaranteeing a bit more of GT frequency. > > > > > > > > Without these strategies we were likely leaving some performance > > > > behind on some scenarious. > > > > > > s/scenarious/scenarios > > I do need to re-enable my spell checker during git commit :) > > > > > > > We should also mention that the platform defaults for enabling/disabling > > > DCC/Balancer will now be chosen by GuC. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Does this need a Fixes: and Cc:stable? > > nope... this is more like enabling a new feature... Hmm, if this really improves performance, as the commit message seems to suggest, why wouldn't we want this in stable, or at least LTS, kernels? So why isn't this a performance bug fix? Ashutosh
