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,
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, James
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 > > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed,
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
>>
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
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed,
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
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 > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 01 Aug
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
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01
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 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
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
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James
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
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On
On 2012-08-01 03:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> >
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > HansenPartnership.com> 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 > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > >
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
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley > > HansenPartnership.com> 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 > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > I got the attached to apply and it doesn't really improve the idle power
> > > much
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> 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
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 chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > > When did you inspect the debug files? One effect I can imagine is
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 20:24 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:14:17 +0100, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
When did you inspect the debug files? One effect I
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
I got the attached to apply and it
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:07:23 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:38:36 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100,
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:45:04 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:16 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:06:12 +0100, James Bottomley
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:14:17 +0100, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> 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
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
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,
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
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:54 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:37:35 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley > > HansenPartnership.com> 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 > HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, bad news: it looks like the problem is drm:
> > >
> > > on 3.5 killing X
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley HansenPartnership.com> 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
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
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
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
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
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 james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com writes:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:54 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:37:35 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:06:42 +0100, James Bottomley
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:57:10 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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,
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:09:44 +0100, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:27 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com writes:
on 3.5 killing X causes idle power to go 14W - 5.9W
on 3.4.6 killing X
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 james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
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
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:
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
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.
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:
On
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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.
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com writes:
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 09:33 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
James Bottomley james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com 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
63 matches
Mail list logo