On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:07:53 +0530 "S, Deepak" <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 1/22/2014 10:04 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:18:59 +0200 > > Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 06:40:26PM +0530, deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> With RC6 enabled, BYT has an HW issue in determining the right > >>> Gfx busyness. > >>> WA for Turbo + RC6: Use SW based Gfx busy-ness detection to decide > >>> on increasing/decreasing the freq. This logic will monitor C0 > >>> counters of render/media power-wells over EI period and takes > >>> necessary action based on these values > >> > >> Do we have any idea what kind of performance impact this should > >> have? > > > > So aside from the code review comments, it sounds like there are two > > high level issues: > > 1) keeping existing boost code from Chris (as mentioned by Ville) > > 2) power measurements vs current upstream > > > > Given that upstream is a bit different than when this code was forked > > off, it could be that we don't need this. Can you sanity check things > > by getting some power measurements with and without this patch? It > > looks like 1/3 and 2/3 will be required in any case though. > > > > Assuming 3/3 does show a benefit, the other question is whether keeping > > the current turbo boost code makes sense, so you'd have to port those > > changes from the gen6_pm_rps_work() from Chris and measure again... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sure Jesse, I will do power measurement and get back to you on the results. Great, thanks Deepak. And this mail looks a lot nicer. :) Thunderbird definitely molests mail less readily than Outlook. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
