On 10/04/2018 11:34, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-10 11:22:55)
On 10/04/2018 10:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
But I'm not understanding the failure -- why is the estimate bad? At the
very least we still ensure that it is monotonic? Is it just the jitter
you are worrying about? (If the estimate is bad here, isn't it always
As far as I have seen failures from CI are all estimate being too large.
(no jitter and no going backwards)
What I suspect is going bad in either case, is that we must not add the
delta from current jiffies to internal runtime pm counters if state is
not suspended. If we do that we are accounting an unknown period of time
as suspended time and that would explain the over-estimation.
In other words we are only allowed to estimate if the current state is
definitely suspended. If it is anything else we need to report either
the last estimated value, or the last real value, depending what is more
i.e. we must not use kdev->power.suspended_jiffies before we know it is
Ok, that is stating to make sense. Thanks, can you update the commitmsg
with this (pretty much verbatim as it is a good explanation).
The patch makes sense - but I still cannot explain the failures since
the test is supposed to be running in an controlled environment:
1. enter runtime suspend
2. sample rc6 (this sets the estimation state)
3. sleep for 2s
4. sample rc6
And the diff between two rc6 states can show from 10% - 50% more RC6
elapsed time than sleep time, even to 300% more in some reports. If i915
is runtime suspended the whole time, and dmesg says it is, I don't know
how this is possible.
There must be another flaw somewhere which I am not seeing currently.
Intel-gfx mailing list