On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 07:36:56PM +0000, Prahlad Kilambi wrote: > > One question is are we able to find a "one size fits all" values. > > > However regardless of that, given we already expose frequency controls in > > sysfs > > with the same reasoning of allowing system owners explicit control if so > > wanted, > > I think exposing the thresholds can be equally justified. > > Exposing these RPS thresholds via sysfs allows for dynamic tuning of these > values at runtime. Common scenarios where we can benefit from variable > frequency ramping include plugged in vs battery where differing thresholds > allow to weight more for performance vs power. Data from testing on ChromeOS > Gen12 platforms where GuC isn't enabled indicates gains > 10% across several > games. See > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8389#note_1890428 for > details. >
In general we should always try to reduce the knobs and specially with a register that doesn't work with the new platforms with FW on control of all these variations. But this is a compelling argument. Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> (if patch 3 doesn't break compilation and the other chunk has the placement explained this is a rv-b for the series)
