All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915/guc/slpc: Provide sysfs for efficient freq
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:11:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877cuwguu6.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230401020049.3843873-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:00:49 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>

Hi Vinay,

> @@ -478,20 +507,15 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>	    val > slpc->max_freq_softlimit)
>		return -EINVAL;
>
> +	/* Ignore efficient freq if lower min freq is requested */
> +	ret = intel_guc_slpc_set_ignore_eff_freq(slpc, val < slpc->rp1_freq);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +

I don't agree with this. If we are now providing an interface explicitly to
ignore RPe, that should be /only/ way to ignore RPe. There should be no
other "under the hood" ignoring of RPe. In other words, ignoring RPe should
be minimized unless explicitly requested.

I don't clearly understand why this was done previously but it makes even
less sense to me now after this patch.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh


>	/* Need a lock now since waitboost can be modifying min as well */
>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>	wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(&i915->runtime_pm);
>
> -	/* Ignore efficient freq if lower min freq is requested */
> -	ret = slpc_set_param(slpc,
> -			     SLPC_PARAM_IGNORE_EFFICIENT_FREQUENCY,
> -			     val < slpc->rp1_freq);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		guc_probe_error(slpc_to_guc(slpc), "Failed to toggle efficient freq: %pe\n",
> -				ERR_PTR(ret));
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> -
>	ret = slpc_set_param(slpc,
>			     SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
>			     val);

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915/guc/slpc: Provide sysfs for efficient freq
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:11:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877cuwguu6.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230401020049.3843873-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:00:49 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>

Hi Vinay,

> @@ -478,20 +507,15 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>	    val > slpc->max_freq_softlimit)
>		return -EINVAL;
>
> +	/* Ignore efficient freq if lower min freq is requested */
> +	ret = intel_guc_slpc_set_ignore_eff_freq(slpc, val < slpc->rp1_freq);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +

I don't agree with this. If we are now providing an interface explicitly to
ignore RPe, that should be /only/ way to ignore RPe. There should be no
other "under the hood" ignoring of RPe. In other words, ignoring RPe should
be minimized unless explicitly requested.

I don't clearly understand why this was done previously but it makes even
less sense to me now after this patch.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh


>	/* Need a lock now since waitboost can be modifying min as well */
>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>	wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(&i915->runtime_pm);
>
> -	/* Ignore efficient freq if lower min freq is requested */
> -	ret = slpc_set_param(slpc,
> -			     SLPC_PARAM_IGNORE_EFFICIENT_FREQUENCY,
> -			     val < slpc->rp1_freq);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		guc_probe_error(slpc_to_guc(slpc), "Failed to toggle efficient freq: %pe\n",
> -				ERR_PTR(ret));
> -		goto out;
> -	}
> -
>	ret = slpc_set_param(slpc,
>			     SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
>			     val);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-04-01  3:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-01  2:00 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915/guc/slpc: Provide sysfs for efficient freq Vinay Belgaumkar
2023-04-01  2:00 ` Vinay Belgaumkar
2023-04-01  2:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2023-04-01  2:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-04-01  2:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-04-01  3:11 ` Dixit, Ashutosh [this message]
2023-04-01  3:11   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-04-05 13:57   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-05 13:57     ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-05 19:42     ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-04-05 19:42       ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-04-05 20:12       ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-05 20:12         ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-04-06  5:08         ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-04-06  5:08           ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-04-02  0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=877cuwguu6.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
    --to=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.