Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-11-28 16:19:49) > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-28 16:10:51) > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > > > > We used to report the minimum possible frequency as both requested and > > active while GPU was in sleep state. This was a consequence of sampling > > the value from the "current frequency" field in our software tracking. > > > > This was strictly speaking wrong, but given that until recently the > > current frequency in sleeping state used to be equal to minimum, it did > > not stand out sufficiently to be noticed as such. > > > > After some recent changes have made the current frequency be reported > > as last active before GPU went to sleep, meaning both requested and active > > frequencies could end up being reported at their maximum values for the > > duration of the GPU idle state, it became much more obvious that this does > > not make sense. > > > > To fix this we will now sample the frequency counters only when the GPU is > > awake. As a consequence reported frequencies could be reported as below > > the GPU reported minimum but that should be much less confusing that the > > current situation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > > Hmm. 0/0 while off, that will be a bit of a shock.
There is a consistency question of whether we should do the same through the [second class ;] sysfs/ interface. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
