<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [regression] (recoverable) GPU resets & fails in slower 3D benchmarks"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112169#c8">Comment # 8</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [regression] (recoverable) GPU resets & fails in slower 3D benchmarks"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112169">bug 112169</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:eero.t.tamminen@intel.com" title="Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@intel.com>"> <span class="fn">Eero Tamminen</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Chris Wilson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=112169#c7">comment #7</a>)
<span class="quote">> GPU reclocking is dysfunctional on Tigerlake (at least as far as observation
> goes and the randomly reported frequencies), so not too surprising as other
> observations back up that Tigerlake is clocking lower than intended.</span >
Looking at:
- /sys/class/drm/card0/gt_act_freq_mhz
- i915:intel_gpu_freq_change tracepoint values
For first minutes of running 3D benchmarks without a pause, tracepoint reports
i915 to have requested 300MHz speed from GPU, but sampling gt_act_freq_mhz
tells GPU to run at 400MHz.
After that tracepoint tells 900Mhz to be requested, but gt_act_freq_mhz tells
GPU to run at 700MHz.
That indeed seems bogus power management behavior, but some of the tests where
the TGL pre-emption reset issues are seen, are still running at > 100FPS, so
they're definitely not too slow from the user point of view.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>