<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> Hello everyone, patch by user @fililip was posted there, but not submitted: "I think I'd have to submit it to the linux kernel mailing list, which I am kinda scared of 😅. It could be better to submit that patch to Arch Linux maintainers; they could include it in their kernel builds." Implementation of this patch can be simplified by simply setting: <code>smu->min_power_limit = amdgpu_ignore_min_pcap ? 0 : whatever_default_smuxx;</code> and then leave rest of the code unchanged(except defining <code>amdgpu_ignore_min_pcap </code>variable of course). Nothing tricky nor need to revert anything should be needed I hope. Please add it to the general kernel as an option, it certainly should not be related to Archlinux only. Roman <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/24 12:15, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:d369b45f-e1af-4117-83a5-3e429e3bfb23@leemhuis.info"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Roman Benes wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Minimum power limit on latest(6.7+) kernels is 190W for my GPU (RX 6700XT, mesa, archlinux) and I cannot get power cap as low as before(to 115W), neither with Corectrl, LACT or TuxClocker and /sys have a variable read-only even for root. This is not of above apps issue but of the kernel, I read similar issues from other bug reports of above apps. I downgraded to v6.6.10 kernel and my 115W(under power)cap work again as before. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Any chance you can use 'git bisect' to figure out the offending change? </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> For the record and everyone that lands here: the cause is known now (it's 1958946858a62b ("drm/amd/pm: Support for getting power1_cap_min value") [v6.7-rc1]) and the issue afaics tracked here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183</a> Other mentions: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3137">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3137</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2992">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2992</a> Haven't seen any statement from the amdgpu developers (now CCed) yet on this there (but might have missed something!). From what I can see I assume this will likely be somewhat tricky to handle, as a revert overall might be a bad idea here. We'll see I guess. Roman posted something that apparently was meant to go to the list, so let me put it here: """ UPDATE: User fililip already posted patch, but it need to be merged, discussion is on gitlab link below. (PS: I hope I am replying correctly to "all" now? - using original addr.) </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">it seems that commit was already found(see user's 'fililip' comment): <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183</a> commit 1958946858a62b6b5392ed075aa219d199bcae39 Author: Ma Jun <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jun.Ma2@amd.com"><Jun.Ma2@amd.com></a> Date: Thu Oct 12 09:33:45 2023 +0800 drm/amd/pm: Support for getting power1_cap_min value Support for getting power1_cap_min value on smu13 and smu11. For other Asics, we still use 0 as the default value. Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jun.Ma2@amd.com"><Jun.Ma2@amd.com></a> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Feng <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kenneth.feng@amd.com"><kenneth.feng@amd.com></a> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alexander.deucher@amd.com"><alexander.deucher@amd.com></a> However, this is not good as it remove under-powering range too far. I </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">was getting only about 7% less performance but 90W(!) less consumption when set to my 115W before. Also I wonder if we as a OS of options and freedom have to stick to such very high reference for min values without ability to override them through some sys ctrls. Commit was done by amd guy and I wonder if because of maybe this post that I made few months ago(business strategy?): </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/183gye7/rx_6700xt_from_230w_to_capped_115w_at_only_10/">https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/183gye7/rx_6700xt_from_230w_to_capped_115w_at_only_10/</a> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> This is not a dangerous OC upwards where I can understand desire to </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">protect HW, it is downward, having min cap at 190W when card pull on 115W almost same speed is IMO crazy to deny. We don't talk about default or reference values here either, just a move to lower the range of options for whatever reason. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> I don't know how much power you guys have over them, but please </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">consider either reverting this change, or give us an option to set min_cap through say /sys (right now param is readonly, even for root). </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Thank you in advance for looking into this, with regards: Romano </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">""" And while at it, let me add this issue to the tracking as well [TLDR: I'm adding this report to the list of tracked Linux kernel regressions; the text you find below is based on a few templates paragraphs you might have encountered already in similar form. See link in footer if these mails annoy you.] Thanks for the report. To be sure the issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, the Linux kernel regression tracking bot: #regzbot introduced 1958946858a62b / #regzbot title drm: amdgpu: under-powering broke Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr">https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr</a> That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you. </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>