On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:53:24AM +0530, Deepak S wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 June 2014 03:47 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:30:53AM +0530, deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>We might be leaving the GPU Frequency (and thus vnn) high during the suspend. > >>Flush the delayed work queue should take care of this. > >> > >>v2: Fixed typo in commit message (Deepak) > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Deepak S <deepak.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >>index 7f643db..8d5ae82 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > >>@@ -4541,7 +4541,7 @@ i915_gem_suspend(struct drm_device *dev) > >> del_timer_sync(&dev_priv->gpu_error.hangcheck_timer); > >> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->mm.retire_work); > >>- cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->mm.idle_work); > >>+ flush_delayed_work(&dev_priv->mm.idle_work); > >Shouldn't we do that in suspend_gt_powersave instead? Also if we cancel > >the retire work the idle work won't necessarily get armed and we might > >miss the window. Just forcing the gt to the lowest freq in > >suspend_gt_powersave should be more reliable. > >-Daniel > > Since we a calling suspend_gt_powersave after i915_gem_suspend, i added the flush in suspend. I'm confused: So you're doing the change I've suggested or it doesn't work? Please unconfuse me ;-) > Yes i agree forcing the gt freq us more reliable So new patch or not? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
