On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:51:16AM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: > If the GPU load is low enough, it's possible that we'll be stuck at idle > frequency rather than transition into softmin frequency requested by > userspace. > > v2: Use intel_set_rps, drop vlv_set_idle > v3: Back to vlv_set_idle, clamp to valid range > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89728 > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index 658a756..a71f946 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -4840,6 +4840,11 @@ void gen6_rps_busy(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > { > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock); > if (dev_priv->rps.enabled) { > + /* Ensure we start at the user's desired frequency */ > + intel_set_rps(dev_priv, > + clamp(dev_priv->rps.cur_freq, > + dev_priv->rps.min_freq_softlimit, > + dev_priv->rps.max_freq_softlimit)); Make this last (after gen6_enable_rps_interrupts), then r.b Moving it last means that we have onion placement with rps_idle, and we don't need a silly comment explaining the apparent duplication of the PMINTRMSK update. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
