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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
> >>
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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
--
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
>
33 matches
Mail list logo