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: |smu->min_power_limit = amdgpu_ignore_min_pcap ? 0 : whatever_default_smuxx;| and then leave rest of the code unchanged(except defining |amdgpu_ignore_min_pcap |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 On 2/19/24 12:15, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 17.02.24 14:30, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Roman Benes wrote: >>> 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. >> Any chance you can use 'git bisect' to figure out the offending change? > 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: > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183 > > Other mentions: > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3137 > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2992 > > 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.) > > >> it seems that commit was already found(see user's 'fililip' comment): >> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3183 >> commit 1958946858a62b6b5392ed075aa219d199bcae39 >> Author: Ma Jun >> 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 >> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Feng >> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher >> >> However, this is not good as it remove under-powering range too far. I > 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?): >> > https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/183gye7/rx_6700xt_from_230w_to_capped_115w_at_only_10/ >> This is not a dangerous OC upwards where I can understand desire to > 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. >> I don't know how much power you guys have over them, but please > 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). >> >> Thank you in advance for looking into this, with regards: Romano > """ > > 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: > https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr > That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you.