Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2023 12:28:27 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: Add RaptorLake support | From | Guillaume Martres <> |
| |
Le 20/08/2023 à 11:20, Zhang, Rui a écrit : > On Sat, 2023-08-19 at 21:41 +0200, Guillaume Martres wrote: >> On 1/19/23 17:13, Zhang, Rui wrote: >>> On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 08:02 +0100, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote: >>>> This patch adds RaptorLake support to the intel_idle driver. >>>> >>>> Since RaptorLake and AlderLake C-state are characteristics the >>>> same, >>>> we use >>>> AlderLake C-states tables for RaptorLake as well. >>> >>> RPL and ADL have same cstates and use the same mwait hints, but the >>> latency of each c-state are still different on different platforms. >>> So we can not just duplicate the ADL table on RPL. >>> >>> There is an effort ongoing that measures the latency of each >>> cstate on the RPL platforms. And based on the measurement result, >>> we >>> can decide if a new custom table is needed or we can just copy the >>> previous platform. Hopefully we will have a patch in a couple of >>> weeks. >> >> Hi, I just stumbled upon this patch series as I was wondering about >> the >> lack of support for Raptor Lake in intel_idle. > > intel_idle support for RaptorLake, and also other platforms that don't > have a custom table, is always there as long as we have BIOS support. > The custom table is just an optimization.
Thanks for the information, I might be misinterpreting the effect of this patch then. I can report that on a Thinkpad P1 Gen 6 using a stock 6.4.11 kernel, the list of C-states looks like this:
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state*/name POLL C1_ACPI C2_ACPI C3_ACPI
Whereas with this patch they look like this:
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state*/name POLL C1E C6 C8 C10
Neither of which looks quite complete (and /sys/module/intel_idle/parameters/max_cstate is set to 9). Is this something I should open a bug report about?
Thanks, Guillaume
| |