From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Use PM QoS to prevent C-state
	memory starvation of the GPU
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:13:35 +0000
Message-ID: <849307$b5l8cu@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
References: <20100921202607.2b46ffca@gmail.com>
	<1291825475-22106-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20110115113431.0e42f037@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294D39E74C
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:13:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110115113431.0e42f037@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Paolo Ornati <ornati@gmail.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:34:31 +0100, Paolo Ornati <ornati@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed,  8 Dec 2010 16:24:35 +0000
> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > This is just a preliminary attempt to see if this even helps. Obviously
> > some more effort will need to be spent investigating a better choice of
> > latency and when we need to request it, but first: does this help?
> 
> Sorry for the very long delay... it seems I've latency problems too ;)
> 
> As for Andrew's comment it looks I need a recent kernel to actually
> test this patch:
> 
> 	"Do you have the 2.6.36.2 candidate patch that fixes pm_qos in?  From
> 	the description, it looks like pm_qos doesn't work at all without it."
> 
> The "problem" is that I cannot reproduce it with 2.6.37 (tested
> yesterday for 8+ hours), but maybe it's just hidden by some coincidence.

Check with powertop to see if anything is preventing low C-states. It would
be great if it just magically fixed itself...
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre