Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-08 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 09:43:48PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 22:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:08:19AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, Ja

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-07 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 2012-08-07 13:43, James Bottomley wrote: On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 22:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:08:19AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-07 Thread James Bottomley
On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 22:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:08:19AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, C

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:08:19AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, Jam

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-02 Thread bwidawsk
On 2012-08-01 03:06, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 01

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-02 Thread Ben Widawsky
On 2012-08-02 00:20, James Bottomley wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 22:08 -0700, bwidawsk wrote: On 2012-08-01 03:06, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +010

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-02 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 22:08 -0700, bwidawsk wrote: > On 2012-08-01 03:06, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > >> wrote: > >>

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > I got the attached to apply and it does

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James B

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > I got the attached to apply and it does

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:07:23 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > Can you please login to the desktop, let it idle, record > > /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/i915_cur_delayinfo and .../i915_drpc_info. > > Then trace-cmd record -e i915 sleep 10s, and follow up with a new pair > > of /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > I got the attached to apply and it does

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > I got the attached to apply and it doesn't really improve the idle power > > > much (12.5W). > > > > That

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > I got the attached to apply and it doesn't really improve the idle power > > much (12.5W). > > That's good to know. Next step is to try overriding i915.semaphores. > Can you

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > I got the attached to apply and it doesn't really improve the idle power > much (12.5W). That's good to know. Next step is to try overriding i915.semaphores. Can you please test with i915.semaphores=0 and i915.semaphores=1? -Chris --

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-08-01 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 20:24 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:14:17 +0100, Chris Wilson > wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > > When did you inspect the debug files? One effect I can imagine is that > > > > if your system was previou

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:14:17 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > > When did you inspect the debug files? One effect I can imagine is that > > > if your system was previously stuck at RPn and never upclocking the GPU > > > when X starts.

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 16:09 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > James Bottomley writes: > > > > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > > > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W > > > > That's actually pre

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:09:44 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > James Bottomley writes: > > > > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > > > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W > > > > That's actually

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > James Bottomley writes: > > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W > > That's actually pretty good news -- you're just not getting to RC6 > when X is running, but

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Keith Packard
James Bottomley writes: > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W That's actually pretty good news -- you're just not getting to RC6 when X is running, but RC6 is otherwise working. And, yes, the GPU really can suck that much

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > When did you inspect the debug files? One effect I can imagine is that > > if your system was previously stuck at RPn and never upclocking the GPU > > when X starts. The question would then be what is preventing the GPU > > from reach

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:54 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:37:35 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley > > > wrote: > > > > Actually, bad news: it looks like the p

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:37:35 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley > > wrote: > > > Actually, bad news: it looks like the problem is drm: > > > > > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to g

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley > wrote: > > Actually, bad news: it looks like the problem is drm: > > > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > Actually, bad news: it looks like the problem is drm: > > on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W -> 5.9W > on 3.4.6 killing X causes idle power to go 6.8W -> 5.7W The files that will be the most interesting to compare at first a

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:31 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:23 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > James Bottomley writes: > > > > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > >> James Bottomley writes: > > >> > > >> > OK, I've run the bisect as far as I ca

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-31 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 11:23 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > James Bottomley writes: > > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > >> James Bottomley writes: > >> > >> > OK, I've run the bisect as far as I can. It looks to be in the drm > >> > tree. Unfortunately, this tree has

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-30 Thread Adam Jackson
On 7/30/12 1:05 PM, James Bottomley wrote: Lenovo X220i The display device is 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82845G/GL[Brookdale-G]/GE Chipset Integrated Graphics Device (rev 03) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller]) Subsystem: Giga-byte Technology Device 2562 F

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-30 Thread Keith Packard
James Bottomley writes: > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: >> James Bottomley writes: >> >> > OK, I've run the bisect as far as I can. It looks to be in the drm >> > tree. Unfortunately, this tree has several merge points, some of which >> > go further back than v3.4.

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > James Bottomley writes: > > > OK, I've run the bisect as far as I can. It looks to be in the drm > > tree. Unfortunately, this tree has several merge points, some of which > > go further back than v3.4. Unfortunately, once the bisect st

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-30 Thread Keith Packard
James Bottomley writes: > OK, I've run the bisect as far as I can. It looks to be in the drm > tree. Unfortunately, this tree has several merge points, some of which > go further back than v3.4. Unfortunately, once the bisect steps back > before 3.4, we lose the changes that gave us the power

Re: Massive power regression going 3.4->3.5

2012-07-30 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 10:46 +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2012-07-29 at 21:25 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, July 29, 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 29, 2012, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 22:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >