Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Enable runtime pm

From: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	"Kaskinen, Tanu" <tanu.kaskinen@intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Enable runtime pm
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:39:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171117083947.fea6qu2khbzjaa64@boom> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171116182402.xgjc2jyzxuz3nhxs@boom>

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:24:02PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:25:42PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Now that we have CI, and that pm_rpm fully passes (I guess the audio
> > > folks have implemented proper runtime pm for snd-hda, hooray, pls
> > > confirm) it's time to enable this again by default.
> > > 
> > > Real goal here is to have 1 configuration only that we fully support,
> > > instead of tons of different codes with every user/customer tuning it
> > > differently. And really, power stuff should work by default, and
> > > should be enabled by everywhere where it is save to do so.
> > > 
> > > v2: Completely new commit message, a few years passed since v1 ...
> > > 
> > > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> > > Cc: Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Yang, Libin" <libin.yang@intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Lin, Mengdong" <mengdong.lin@intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Li, Jocelyn" <jocelyn.li@intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Kaskinen, Tanu" <tanu.kaskinen@intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Zanoni, Paulo R" <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > 
> > lgtm,
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Been testing a bit; test results are a bit discouraging when it comes to
> idle power consumption.
> 
> Our nightly test suite logs idle power consumption before running any
> tests, after running all tests, and then finally after running
> powertop --auto-tune.
> 
> The before and after cases are similar with and without patch,
> but not so for the auto-tune case.
> 
> Without this patch, powertop --auto-tune yields a massive improvement
> (on NUC6i5 the power consumption drops with more than a factor of 3),
> while with this patch the power consumption just drops with 10% or so.

With the 10s => 0.1s bit of the patch reverted there's no longer any
--auto-tune regression.


Kind regards, David
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx