Hi, On 9/7/22 17:35, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 16:35, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Bastien, >> >> On 9/7/22 16:24, Bastien Nocera wrote: >>> Hey Shyam, >>> >>> I misunderstood that CnQF was a single setting, but it looks like it >>> has 4 different levels, right? >>> Unless there's a major malfunction, I don't think that offering to >>> switch between 2 different policies where the difference is how >>> "static" the performance boosts are is very useful, or comprehensible, >>> to end-users. >>> >>> If CnQF only has a single "on" setting, then this could replace the >>> balanced mode for what you call "static slider", so the end-user can >>> still make a choice and have agency on whether the system tries to >>> save power, or increase performance. >>> >>> If CnQF has multiple levels (Turbo, Performance, Balanced and Quiet, >>> right?), then I don't think it's useful to have a sysfs setting to >>> switch it at runtime, which only confuses user-space and the users. >>> BIOS setting and/or kernel command-line option are the way to go. >>> >>> Did I understand this correctly? >> >> Let me try clarify things: >> >> CnQF has 4 levels internally, between which it switches automatically >> based on the workload of the last 5 minutes. > > Oh, those profiles are internal only, OK. Do those automated levels > behave like the "static slider" ones, to the point of being > indistinguishable? So for example, does the static slider > "performance" behave like "CnQF" if the machine was heavily loaded > machine for 5 minutes? This is more of a question for AMD to answer. But yes I believe that the CnQF internal performance mode which it boosts to if the machine is heavily loaded for 5 minutes is similar to the static slider performance setting. Regards, Hans
