Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 180

Thread: More Radeon Power Management Improvements

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,360

    Default

    Yes, evergreen is at the same level as previous generations.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Can we somehow change the pm settings as user? Or would it be "secure" enough letting a plasma applet change the values as root?

    I am considering programming a plasma widget to change the pm settings.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HokTar View Post

    Check your current state:
    cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/radeon_pm_info

    Now you can recheck if your power state changed to the desired one:
    cat /sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/radeon_pm_info
    Thanks for the mini guide, but my kernel doesn't seem to have any directories within the debug directory. Well it seems that I can set the power mode anyway.

    Using latest stable 2.6.35.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tball View Post
    Thanks for the mini guide, but my kernel doesn't seem to have any directories within the debug directory. Well it seems that I can set the power mode anyway.

    Using latest stable 2.6.35.

    You need to mount debugfs somewhere, like this :
    Code:
    mkdir /debugfs
    mount -t debugfs debugfs /debugfs
    cat /debugfs/dri/0/radeon_pm_info

    Well, for me it works...(r7xx, radeon 4550)...but it seems to slow to get back to normal temperature...I mean, even in low mode, the fan need at least 5 minutes to spin down again after playing a video.
    And why are the PCIe lanes are always equals to 16 whatever the profile mode...?

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,360

    Default

    The pcie lanes are only adjusted if the power profile requests it; not all profiles do.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    And which profile does ? I thought "low" would be the one...
    Just a question : is development for powersaving features done ? I mean, it still needs improvement, doesn't it ? Still not as good as the catalyst powerplay....

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    And which profile does ? I thought "low" would be the one...
    Just a question : is development for powersaving features done ? I mean, it still needs improvement, doesn't it ? Still not as good as the catalyst powerplay....
    I believe the profiles just look up settings from the cards BIOS, which can have card/vendor specific settings in it. So if your cards low-power profile is set to X Mhz core, Y Mhz mem, and 16 lanes, then that's what the driver goes to.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    That's a very bad news indeed...so there is no way it would have someday the same behavior as the catalyst driver (without reflashing the bios) ? I mean what if the only way to reduce even more the energy consumption was to reduce the pcie lanes...it must be done somehow by the catalyst driver...or the dynamic clocking algorithm is different...

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,441

    Default

    How is that bad news ? All it means is that the current open source power management doesn't do as much as fglrx power management, but that is hardly a revelation, and it says nothing about what can/will happen in the future.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    I mean what if the only way to reduce even more the energy consumption was to reduce the pcie lanes...it must be done somehow by the catalyst driver
    Well, the code is open source, so you can reduce the number of pcie lanes yourself to find out. I played around with that a bit when power management was only in the user space driver and I did not find that reducing the number of pcie lanes resulted in lower power consumption, only to instability

    FWIW I'm currently using fglrx at the moment and it's using all of the 16 pcie lanes with a HD 5750, regardless of the performance level.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •