From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f52.google.com (mail-lf1-f52.google.com [209.85.167.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A90F24B47 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:35:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708342537; cv=none; b=CkzOMkOd7zWdQX5lYOu1OwvPrH8ht3XaBgb4N6mPAvH/ZGzaM0vRGEqOux10C6iKmJboEpgecgH2t28eVd7Y1ID/M8X5xf/1/TKT76vjqjwjk5V4HGq2MjqaGafaax3Ndze+CDV7AICXnF/+mdx2RWDeA6BsVIWpdEC7KZyTycc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708342537; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xmqPjVzYpogRAijd8pYRZRipn0W2NEyFnUi5nFHDuT8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=c10c05zK7sVecA2S+/Lm7r5I1gSLX7CtagsfERcN8A3OgzxjONaBFje5E06MHRLJs90aoSbrPYKVGJJfvF7ZezkvNeAz3jk8sA1TPrvuo+ZPUT8YfGUFuB1zkqvyWFz8smvySNVaCAjOLkS6iUjou4MmUxkl7IsXioQGSl3Jth8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=f/nD/fD4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="f/nD/fD4" Received: by mail-lf1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-512a65cd2c7so1908130e87.0 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 03:35:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708342534; x=1708947334; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fp0CljdJHSwjfF5ZNUmuD0dU70AWZ9zUOAjyO5xBNe4=; b=f/nD/fD4jsAYgmKBoZ/xb6XV836JfjyBZx9NYhPvmXQapEdNHDFfWHyjzgBzdTxOz6 gMNirDWmaQKNpoh2SlOPu4rMIgyNno2fBNT4Whl1oPQ5G6ywCrnjaAmpKFAPn/ASxkrS n6VZ0CyjggnwOf+XPBhK/KHlz+8+lANdzFtQnjco0E0vyN043u9YNgSBdMXMvhaTPoWe Y8f/k370r5mL4Nt175veOUgA4lkDWfZ6vy2gPDPlUEsoCKiIh9YoYEGtk5PwlrlOkuM8 OF9m8c6MrCqA8m5wvO2sOYvr31pSkGbGk2v/vXJUUvzdADmFE6ZjpJY+rgTQqem01xbo ZxzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708342534; x=1708947334; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fp0CljdJHSwjfF5ZNUmuD0dU70AWZ9zUOAjyO5xBNe4=; b=S/U35hAg6GG6flaf7l54upLjcXOdibn4Y2wapKctYK7mXGOQ0Ychyq1kKbIO9+4sOO ytJt/xxK6Eh8K2eMuxJW/az9wcskOgogl0nAo3rXeOCu0nRxzO2qC7ZDD7itUSxZoiEV tnvHRW6D8qOH/m4TabS0RXtXMhY220MQUPFBV0wQ0DzAby/bJeyfohmp7OgMW10jZ2T7 8dJwPwwXRf9QL1Jt8JyW27mve/4ZriMku9LQRKrrqlZlRN2Vm9TqV9EU7AIjsZhVYFBc mFOWhZyv4NAciJ/LV8YehtIwJkIu27IuduMe16bfpCVE6eMP+7BgNrCaqyOBiTudT630 dy2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwibvxzeL2iNJsYPIZVivSLxWUsEXD4fU9mwk74m1GkYbBqqv2+ OohNX56RqONjDDK7LLcxRLc2GJGYszIdD5l8Lak6EWvzSgAkf0QkMiWg2iAfEF4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGfyk1oGv6vKjSp6w6XW7c0CC4S9n/+WgaeOfiW2DLN0CbfpnIgrZVk+qQe23FJKdbg1HFndQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:358a:b0:512:b702:a794 with SMTP id m10-20020a056512358a00b00512b702a794mr963508lfr.17.1708342533352; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 03:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.2.1] (server.riadoklan.sk.eu.org. [195.3.170.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d21-20020aa7d695000000b00560e72d22b8sm2589324edr.2.2024.02.19.03.35.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 03:35:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8857ad7c-c42a-435c-a74f-ecd6d77dbfa5@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:35:31 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu) Content-Language: en-US To: Linux regressions mailing list , Alex Deucher , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= , "Pan, Xinhui" Cc: Ma Jun , "amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , Dave Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Greg KH References: <2024021732-framing-tactful-833d@gregkh> From: Romano In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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.