[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: Fix computation of last_adjustment for RPS autotuning

[Deepak S]

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 02:50 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:26:49PM +0530, Deepak S wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 06 March 2015 08:36 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 27 ++++++++++++---------------
>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> index 9baecb79de8c..1296ce37e435 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> @@ -1150,21 +1150,20 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>   	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
>>>   	adj = dev_priv->rps.last_adj;
>>> +	new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_freq;
>>>   	if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_UP_THRESHOLD) {
>>>   		if (adj > 0)
>>>   			adj *= 2;
>>> -		else {
>>> -			/* CHV needs even encode values */
>>> -			adj = IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv->dev) ? 2 : 1;
>>> -		}
>>> -		new_delay = dev_priv->rps.cur_freq + adj;
>>> -
>>> +		else /* CHV needs even encode values */
>>> +			adj = IS_CHERRYVIEW(dev_priv) ? 2 : 1;
>>>   		/*
>>>   		 * For better performance, jump directly
>>>   		 * to RPe if we're below it.
>>>   		 */
>>> -		if (new_delay < dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq)
>>> +		if (new_delay < dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq - adj) {
>>>   			new_delay = dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq;
>>> +			adj = 0;
>>> +		}
>>>   	} else if (pm_iir & GEN6_PM_RP_DOWN_TIMEOUT) {
>>>   		if (dev_priv->rps.cur_freq > dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq)
>>>   			new_delay = dev_priv->rps.efficient_freq;
>>> @@ -1176,24 +1175,22 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> I think we should modify adj in GEN6_PM_RP_UP_EI_EXPIRED?
>> if not not we might request higher freq since we add adj to new_delay before request freq.
> The best way to resolve the conflict appears to be just to reorder this
> patch later after the removal of the vlv specific adj paths
> -Chris

Yes, I saw the reorder patch. looks fine.