Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On 21.02.24 16:53, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 21.02.24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten >> Leemhuis) wrote: >>> >>> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: > > If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed > patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't > fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that > matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still > within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. >>> >>> But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it >>> strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give >>> users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box >>> IMHO is the minimum we should do. > [...] TWIMC, I mentioned this twice in mails to Linus, he didn't get involved, so I assume things are fine the way they are for him. And then it's of course totally fine for me, too. :-D Thx again for all your help and sorry for causing trouble, but in my line of work these "might or might not be a regression from Linus viewpoint, so let's get him involved" sometimes just happen. Ciao, Thorsten #regzbot resolve: apparently not a regression from Linus viewpoint
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
Back from vacations ... On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: > > > > On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: > > >> > > >> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed > > >> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't > > >> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that > > >> matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still > > >> within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. > > > > > > This whole thing reminds me of this: > > > https://xkcd.com/1172/ > > > The problem is another module parameter is another interface to > > > maintain and validate. > > > > Yup, of course, all that is understood. > > > > But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it > > strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give > > users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box > > IMHO is the minimum we should do. > > > > Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU > > generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in > > the future. > > The problem is the cumulative effect of all of these parameters. > Every time there is some change in the driver someone disagrees with > there is a push to add a module parameter for it. The driver already > has too many module parameters and it's hard to keep them all working > consistently and in every possible combination. Moreover, the module > options are supposed to be mainly for debugging. The driver sets > proper defaults for all chips to ensure proper operation, however lots > of random forums seem to treat them like they are the recipe for some > special sauce so users are constantly setting various combinations of > them because they read somewhere on a forum that it would make their > GPU run faster. More often than not this leads to problems. > > Even if we did make the option only valid for these specific chips, > there will be an expectation that future chips will support it as > well, because someone will hack the driver and test it and it may work > for them and then there will be a push to add it for those chips too. Chiming in here ... tldr; yes gpu drivers are ridiculously hard to get right, combinatorial explosion is a real issue and concern, it's not some hiding behind corporate rules - drm folks added module_param*unsafe to discourage users from playing around with options we need for debugging for very, very real reasons. We have aggressively removed tuning knobs in the past, and those we have in various drivers are causing endless amounts of pain. Also, the "no regression" rules is not ironclad, especially on power/perf regressions, or all the security fixes would be impossible to merge. First make it correct (even if the bug has gone unnoticed for forever), then make it fast/power efficient/pretty/whatever people fancy. Yes there's some exceptions like "my desktop is crawling like a slide-show and absolutely unusable" kind of regressions, but my understanding is this isn't the case here. So unless Dave or Linus are screaming and overruling Alex here, "do nothing" is my take here too. Cheers, Sima > > Alex > > > > Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the > > > past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or > > > stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing > > > that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the > > > issue. > > > > Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a > > taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will > > still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. > > > > Ciao, Thorsten > > > > > This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over > > > or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are > > > staying within the bounding box of the design. > > > > > > Alex > > > > > >> On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: > > For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most > > people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it > > adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we > > have to. > > > > Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because > > things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving > > significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. > > > > Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and > > especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single > > case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said > > variable. Now there
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
So that's what its about. Somehow I knew it all along. Not long ago, I posted this on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/183gye7/rx_6700xt_from_230w_to_capped_115w_at_only_10/ That was 3 months ago. Now suddenly AMD *require*("..hardware engineers have explicitly pointed out that we *have to* do this in the software stack", "..open source drivers are *not respecting* the min value") that you fix min_cap hard. What a coincidence, with unlimited min_cap being fine for years. What is the statistical probability that just 3 months after someone blow it into public, they patch the driver to "respect firmware" and thing is suddenly "out of specs". I don't know. Maybe someone remind them we do not work for them and we don't care for their marketing strategies. What is it to them if user can override kernel value? Card literally cannot die, I cannot fry it, I am not going over peak allowed power but opposite. Whether I have to do it via boot or patch a kernel should not be up to them. By all means set min_cap to specification, but do allow for override. That's all we ask, there are many users and more issues about this opened on gitlab than just mine. Also the points about vendors knowing and defining range due to HW components... please. How come they haven't seen such a huge savings when HW is clearly operating safe? To me this is intentional and have to do about how bad may future HW sell, like an arbitrary hold-back to milk money(kind of what Intel did for many CPU generations). Because they don't have much room on the die shrink and other optimizations also happened over decades. Things are saturated everywhere. You can show nice upgrade charts on how next gen. beat 6700XT if it draw ~200W, but can next gen beat it to warrant purchase if my 6700XT get almost same perf., but on **80% less** power? That efficiency ratio is so blown out it leave few jaws on the floor and 2-3 generations obsolete. No wonder they have to fake specs. I don't believe them a word, cards operate safely and this could not be missed. On 2/21/24 16:15, Christian König wrote: Am 21.02.24 um 07:06 schrieb Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis): On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. This whole thing reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ The problem is another module parameter is another interface to maintain and validate. Yup, of course, all that is understood. But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box IMHO is the minimum we should do. Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in the future. Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the issue. Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. Let me recap what happened here: 1. AMD is the GPU manufacturer, but apart from a few exceptions doesn't assemble boards. 2. Vendors take AMDs GPUs and assemble them together with power regulators, memory and a bunch of other components into PCIe board. 3. AMD provides a vendor agnostic driver and for this to work vendors describe to the min/max voltage their power regulators can do in some flash memory. 4. Hardware engineers point out that AMDs open source drivers are not respecting the min value. 5. In response a patch was applied to respect that value and not use something outside of the hardware specification the vendor provided. I'm not sure about it but I think AMD need to respect the min/max values simply by contract and it's not really an option to not do that. If someone really want to run your hardware outside the vendor recommended values that person can still patch the driver to ignore the limits. It's just that then AMD is not responsible for any damage resulting from that. So as far as I can see the request to make that a module option is a no-go, especially since hardware engineers have explicitly pointed out that we have to do this in the software stack. Regards, Christian. Ciao, Thorsten This obviously can still happen if you allow any sor
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
[+Linus, as we seem to have reached the point in the discussion about this regression where that is likely for the best. And just for the record: I'm *not* doing that because I'm disappointed, angry, or something. I can relate to the point that was made in the mail I'm replying to. It's just that this is a tricky situation due to the "hardware might be damaged or work unreliable" aspect, so it's best if we all know how Linus wants this to be handled.] BTW, thread starts here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ae64f04d-6e94-4da4-a740-78ea94e05...@riadoklan.sk.eu.org/ On 21.02.24 16:15, Christian König wrote: > Am 21.02.24 um 07:06 schrieb Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis): >> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. >>> This whole thing reminds me of this: >>> https://xkcd.com/1172/ >>> The problem is another module parameter is another interface to >>> maintain and validate. >> Yup, of course, all that is understood. >> >> But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it >> strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give >> users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box >> IMHO is the minimum we should do. >> >> Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU >> generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in >> the future. >> >>> Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the >>> past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or >>> stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing >>> that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the >>> issue. >> Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a >> taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will >> still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. > > Let me recap what happened here: > > 1. AMD is the GPU manufacturer, but apart from a few exceptions doesn't > assemble boards. > > 2. Vendors take AMDs GPUs and assemble them together with power > regulators, memory and a bunch of other components into PCIe board. > > 3. AMD provides a vendor agnostic driver and for this to work vendors > describe to the min/max voltage their power regulators can do in some > flash memory. > > 4. Hardware engineers point out that AMDs open source drivers are not > respecting the min value. > > 5. In response a patch was applied to respect that value and not use > something outside of the hardware specification the vendor provided. > > I'm not sure about it but I think AMD need to respect the min/max values > simply by contract and it's not really an option to not do that. > > If someone really want to run your hardware outside the vendor > recommended values that person can still patch the driver to ignore the > limits. It's just that then AMD is not responsible for any damage > resulting from that. > > So as far as I can see the request to make that a module option is a > no-go, especially since hardware engineers have explicitly pointed out > that we have to do this in the software stack. As mentioned above: I can relate to that point of view. But in the end this is the kernel and "no regressions" is something that is considered the #1 rule in the development process and especially so by Linus himself. So let's see if he has something to say here. If he doesn't reply I'll rest my case. :-D Ciao, Thorsten >>> This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over >>> or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are >>> staying within the bounding box of the design. >>> >>> Alex >>> On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: >> For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what >> most >> people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised >> if it >> adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why >> would we >> have to. >> >> Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because >> things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving >> significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. >> >> Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and >> especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single >> case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said >> variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver >> goes opposite into max power. T
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On 21.02.24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: >> >> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. >>> >>> This whole thing reminds me of this: >>> https://xkcd.com/1172/ >>> The problem is another module parameter is another interface to >>> maintain and validate. >> >> Yup, of course, all that is understood. >> >> But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it >> strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give >> users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box >> IMHO is the minimum we should do. >> >> Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU >> generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in >> the future. > > The problem is the cumulative effect of all of these parameters. > Every time there is some change in the driver someone disagrees with > there is a push to add a module parameter for it. The driver already > has too many module parameters and it's hard to keep them all working > consistently and in every possible combination. Moreover, the module > options are supposed to be mainly for debugging. The driver sets > proper defaults for all chips to ensure proper operation, however lots > of random forums seem to treat them like they are the recipe for some > special sauce so users are constantly setting various combinations of > them because they read somewhere on a forum that it would make their > GPU run faster. More often than not this leads to problems. > > Even if we did make the option only valid for these specific chips, > there will be an expectation that future chips will support it as > well, because someone will hack the driver and test it and it may work > for them and then there will be a push to add it for those chips too. I know, I fully understand this. Sorry for being a PITA. I'm just arguing for a parameter because I think that's what I should do in this situation due to the regression aspect and our #1 rule. Ciao, Thorsten >>> Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the >>> past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or >>> stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing >>> that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the >>> issue. >> >> Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a >> taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will >> still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. >> >> Ciao, Thorsten >> >>> This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over >>> or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are >>> staying within the bounding box of the design. >>> >>> Alex >>> On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: >> For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most >> people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it >> adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we >> have to. >> >> Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because >> things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving >> significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. >> >> Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and >> especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single >> case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said >> variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver >> goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily >> detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that >> protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to >> safety standards with that one. > Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It > might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the > logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may > not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators > used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be > an issue if you stick the bounding box. > > Alex > >> As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by >> fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It >> introduce a variable that can be
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
He is my proposal: On boot, read chip values into min_cap, default_cap, max_cap and set them, satisfying AMD's requirement. Do not introduce any new boot flags, keeping things simple. Keep def_cap and max_cap readonly to protect HW. Make min_cap readwrite: "echo 1234 > /sys/...min_cap". No limitation to specific HW, just general. This way you did your job fulfilling AMD's request. If user change min, it was his intention anyway - HW is safe with this option. You won't see any false bug reports because this does not introduce instability, unlike OC. As a side note, it seems Windows does not allow lower than vendors min as well, even via Afterburner. This may seem like "you see, they too follow specs", but I see it more positive for Linux. We already have a mesa which is on par, if not better than Nvidia driver. It is generally known that AMD is great on Linux. Now if on top of that Windows users find that not only can they get better, limitless drivers, but also significant - out of charts efficiency and power savings, this make Linux only more attractive to Windows users and make an adoption faster. On 2/21/24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote: On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. This whole thing reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ The problem is another module parameter is another interface to maintain and validate. Yup, of course, all that is understood. But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box IMHO is the minimum we should do. Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in the future. The problem is the cumulative effect of all of these parameters. Every time there is some change in the driver someone disagrees with there is a push to add a module parameter for it. The driver already has too many module parameters and it's hard to keep them all working consistently and in every possible combination. Moreover, the module options are supposed to be mainly for debugging. The driver sets proper defaults for all chips to ensure proper operation, however lots of random forums seem to treat them like they are the recipe for some special sauce so users are constantly setting various combinations of them because they read somewhere on a forum that it would make their GPU run faster. More often than not this leads to problems. Even if we did make the option only valid for these specific chips, there will be an expectation that future chips will support it as well, because someone will hack the driver and test it and it may work for them and then there will be a push to add it for those chips too. Alex Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the issue. Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. Ciao, Thorsten This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are staying within the bounding box of the design. Alex On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. Becau
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: > >> > >> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed > >> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't > >> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that > >> matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still > >> within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. > > > > This whole thing reminds me of this: > > https://xkcd.com/1172/ > > The problem is another module parameter is another interface to > > maintain and validate. > > Yup, of course, all that is understood. > > But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it > strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give > users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box > IMHO is the minimum we should do. > > Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU > generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in > the future. The problem is the cumulative effect of all of these parameters. Every time there is some change in the driver someone disagrees with there is a push to add a module parameter for it. The driver already has too many module parameters and it's hard to keep them all working consistently and in every possible combination. Moreover, the module options are supposed to be mainly for debugging. The driver sets proper defaults for all chips to ensure proper operation, however lots of random forums seem to treat them like they are the recipe for some special sauce so users are constantly setting various combinations of them because they read somewhere on a forum that it would make their GPU run faster. More often than not this leads to problems. Even if we did make the option only valid for these specific chips, there will be an expectation that future chips will support it as well, because someone will hack the driver and test it and it may work for them and then there will be a push to add it for those chips too. Alex > > Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the > > past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or > > stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing > > that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the > > issue. > > Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a > taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will > still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. > > Ciao, Thorsten > > > This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over > > or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are > > staying within the bounding box of the design. > > > > Alex > > > >> On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: > For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most > people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it > adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we > have to. > > Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because > things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving > significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. > > Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and > especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single > case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said > variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver > goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily > detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that > protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to > safety standards with that one. > >>> Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It > >>> might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the > >>> logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may > >>> not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators > >>> used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be > >>> an issue if you stick the bounding box. > >>> > >>> Alex > >>> > As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by > fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It > introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. > But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have > access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. > > > > On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM L
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
Am 21.02.24 um 07:06 schrieb Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis): On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. This whole thing reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ The problem is another module parameter is another interface to maintain and validate. Yup, of course, all that is understood. But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box IMHO is the minimum we should do. Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in the future. Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the issue. Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. Let me recap what happened here: 1. AMD is the GPU manufacturer, but apart from a few exceptions doesn't assemble boards. 2. Vendors take AMDs GPUs and assemble them together with power regulators, memory and a bunch of other components into PCIe board. 3. AMD provides a vendor agnostic driver and for this to work vendors describe to the min/max voltage their power regulators can do in some flash memory. 4. Hardware engineers point out that AMDs open source drivers are not respecting the min value. 5. In response a patch was applied to respect that value and not use something outside of the hardware specification the vendor provided. I'm not sure about it but I think AMD need to respect the min/max values simply by contract and it's not really an option to not do that. If someone really want to run your hardware outside the vendor recommended values that person can still patch the driver to ignore the limits. It's just that then AMD is not responsible for any damage resulting from that. So as far as I can see the request to make that a module option is a no-go, especially since hardware engineers have explicitly pointed out that we have to do this in the software stack. Regards, Christian. Ciao, Thorsten This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are staying within the bounding box of the design. Alex On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be an issue if you stick the bounding box. Alex As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: >> >> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed >> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't >> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that >> matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still >> within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. > > This whole thing reminds me of this: > https://xkcd.com/1172/ > The problem is another module parameter is another interface to > maintain and validate. Yup, of course, all that is understood. But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box IMHO is the minimum we should do. Maybe just allow that parameter only up to a certain recent GPU generation, that way you won't have to deal with that at some point in the future. > Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the > past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or > stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing > that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the > issue. Taint the kernel when that module parameter is used? We iirc have a taint bit exactly for this sort of situation. Sure, such reports will still happen, but then you at least have an indicator to spot them. Ciao, Thorsten > This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over > or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are > staying within the bounding box of the design. > > Alex > >> On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. >>> Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It >>> might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the >>> logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may >>> not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators >>> used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be >>> an issue if you stick the bounding box. >>> >>> Alex >>> As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: >> >> On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. >>> For the record and everyone that lands here: the cause is known now >>> (it's 1958946858a62b ("drm/amd/p
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. 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. The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially damage your hardware. Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or even supported already? And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on the characteristics of the design. If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning in the logs at the very least. Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big warning in the logs sounds like a good solution to me. Yeah, especially as it sounds from some of the reports as if some vendors did a really bad job when it came to setting the proper lower-bound limits are now adhered -- and thus higher then what we used out-of-the box before 1958946858a62b was applied. Side note: I assume those "lower bounds checking" is done round about the same way by the Windows driver? Does that one allow users to go lower somehow? Say after modifying the registry or something like that? Or through external tools? Windows uses the same limit. I'm not aware of any way to override the limit on windows off hand. Alex Ciao, Thorsten 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
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
This setting does not introduce stability problems or bugs. Voltage/frequency ratio is dynamic relative to power cap, GPU auto adjust to it. This is not like lowering voltage alone. By lowering GPU power, it simply auto-adjust its frequency and voltage on the fly and remain stable without crashes. If you lower power way too far, GPU flip to maximum power usage on its own, as reported. So both lower than vendors are not as undefined as it seems and safety checks are done outside vendors range as well. As for maintenance, patch is literally single "if" switch and a boot option. Idea that you spare yourself extra trouble from reports by not implementing this is also false. If this patch is not implemented, I can say with confidence that people will end up patching their kernels(I know I would) due to how much power can this option save. It is way too important. You will still end up with reports, only this time without even be aware of the patch because it will be unofficial, "in-house" made. And probably forget this thing even existed later on. You also introduce extra work to the users, it will not be simple "pacman -Syu" anymore, but hassle of whole kernel setup, patching and recompilation on the user's side. On 2/20/24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. This whole thing reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ The problem is another module parameter is another interface to maintain and validate. Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the issue. This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are staying within the bounding box of the design. Alex On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be an issue if you stick the bounding box. Alex As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. For the rec
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we have to. Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to safety standards with that one. Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be an issue if you stick the bounding box. Alex As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. 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. The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially damage your hardware. Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or even supported already? And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on the characteristics of the design. If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning in the logs at the very least. Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big warni
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten >> Leemhuis) wrote: >>> >>> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. >> > 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. The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially damage your hardware. >>> >>> Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. >>> >>> Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. >>> I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find >>> some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do >>> what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or >>> even supported already? >>> >>> And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its >>> specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the >>> driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? >> >> Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, >> this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. >> When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, >> they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on >> the characteristics of the design. >> >> If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning >> in the logs at the very least. > > Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big > warning in the logs sounds like a good solution to me. Yeah, especially as it sounds from some of the reports as if some vendors did a really bad job when it came to setting the proper lower-bound limits are now adhered -- and thus higher then what we used out-of-the box before 1958946858a62b was applied. Side note: I assume those "lower bounds checking" is done round about the same way by the Windows driver? Does that one allow users to go lower somehow? Say after modifying the registry or something like that? Or through external tools? Ciao, Thorsten > 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
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. >>> >> 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. > > The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board > design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the > validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially > damage your hardware. Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or even supported already? And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? Ciao, Thorsten >> 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 L
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
Hi, On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: >> >> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > 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. >>> >>> The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board >>> design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the >>> validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially >>> damage your hardware. >> >> Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. >> >> Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. >> I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find >> some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do >> what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or >> even supported already? >> >> And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its >> specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the >> driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? > > Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, > this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. > When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, > they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on > the characteristics of the design. > > If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning > in the logs at the very least. Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big warning in the logs sounds like a good solution to me. Regards, Hans 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,
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano wrote: > > If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed > patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't > fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that > matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still > within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. This whole thing reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ The problem is another module parameter is another interface to maintain and validate. Moreover, we've had a number of cases in the past where users have under or overclocked and reported bugs or stability issues and it did not come to light that they were doing that until we'd already spent a good deal of time trying to debug the issue. This obviously can still happen if you allow any sort of over or underclocking, but at least if you stick to the limits you are staying within the bounding box of the design. Alex > > > > On 2/20/24 19:09, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: > >> For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most > >> people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it > >> adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we > >> have to. > >> > >> Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because > >> things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving > >> significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. > >> > >> Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and > >> especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single > >> case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said > >> variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver > >> goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily > >> detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that > >> protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to > >> safety standards with that one. > > Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It > > might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the > > logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may > > not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators > > used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be > > an issue if you stick the bounding box. > > > > Alex > > > >> As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by > >> fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It > >> introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. > >> But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have > >> access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > >>> Leemhuis) wrote: > > On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > >> Leemhuis) wrote: > >>> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > > 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. > The change aligns the d
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:27 AM Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > > Leemhuis) wrote: > >> > >> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > > > 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. > >>> > >>> The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board > >>> design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the > >>> validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially > >>> damage your hardware. > >> > >> Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. > >> > >> Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. > >> I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find > >> some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do > >> what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or > >> even supported already? > >> > >> And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its > >> specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the > >> driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? > > > > Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, > > this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. > > When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, > > they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on > > the characteristics of the design. > > > > If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning > > in the logs at the very least. > > Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big > warning in the logs sounds like a good solution to me. I dunno. I kind of go back and forth with it. It's yet another knob to maintain and when we've done things like this in the past, we get lots of bug reports or angry users because the kernel is sending warnings when they set it. Alex > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > > 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/comment
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 11:46 AM Romano wrote: > > For Windows, apps like MSI Afterburner is the one to try and what most > people go for. Using it in the past myself, I would be surprised if it > adhered to such a high min power cap. But even if it did, why would we > have to. > > Relying on vendors cap in this case has already proven wrong because > things worked for quite some time already and people reported saving > significant amount of watts, in my case 90W(!) for <10% perf. > > Therefore this talk about safety seems rather strange to me and > especially so when we are talking about min_cap. Or name me a single > case where someone fried his card due to "too low power" set in said > variable. Now there was a report, where by going way too low, driver > goes opposite into max power. That's it. That can be easily > detected(vents going crazy etc.) and reverted. It is a max_cap that > protect HW(also above scenario), not a min_cap. Feel free to adhere to > safety standards with that one. Because operation outside of the design bounding box is undefined. It might work for some boards but not others. It's possible some of the logic in the firmware or some of the components used on the board may not work correctly below a certain limit, or the voltage regulators used on a specific board have a minimum requirement that would not be an issue if you stick the bounding box. Alex > > As for solution, what some suggested already exist - a patch posted by > fililip on gitlab is probably the way most of you would agree. It > introduce a variable that can be set during boot to override min_cap. > But he did not pull requested it, so please, if any one of you who have > access to code and merge kernel would be kind enough to implement it. > > > > On 2/20/24 16:46, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > > Leemhuis) wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: > > On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > >>> 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. > >> The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board > >> design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the > >> validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially > >> damage your hardware. > > Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. > > > > Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. > > I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find > > some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do > > what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or > > even supported already? > > > > And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its > > specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the > > driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? > Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, > this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. > When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, > they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on > the characteristics
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:42 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > > > On 20.02.24 16:27, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2/20/24 16:15, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > >> Leemhuis) wrote: > >>> > >>> On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > >> > > 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. > > The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board > design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the > validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially > damage your hardware. > >>> > >>> Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. > >>> > >>> Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. > >>> I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find > >>> some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do > >>> what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or > >>> even supported already? > >>> > >>> And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its > >>> specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the > >>> driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? > >> > >> Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, > >> this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. > >> When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, > >> they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on > >> the characteristics of the design. > >> > >> If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning > >> in the logs at the very least. > > > > Requiring a module-option to be set to allow this, as well as a big > > warning in the logs sounds like a good solution to me. > > Yeah, especially as it sounds from some of the reports as if some > vendors did a really bad job when it came to setting the proper > lower-bound limits are now adhered -- and thus higher then what we used > out-of-the box before 1958946858a62b was applied. > > Side note: I assume those "lower bounds checking" is done round about > the same way by the Windows driver? Does that one allow users to go > lower somehow? Say after modifying the registry or something like that? > Or through external tools? Windows uses the same limit. I'm not aware of any way to override the limit on windows off hand. Alex > > Ciao, Thorsten > > > 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 > >> > >> Ho
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
Am 20.02.24 um 16:15 schrieb Alex Deucher: On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. 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. The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially damage your hardware. Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or even supported already? And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on the characteristics of the design. If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning in the logs at the very least. Yeah, I mean we had a similar outcry when we started to apply the limits for the display PLLs as well. It's just that we have to stay inside certain parameters to be allowed as hardware vendor to sell the stuff in most countries because of public regulations. I mean you can in theory program the ASIC so that it starts sucking more power than allowed through the PCIe lanes which could start a fire. Because of that certain settings are protected by signed firmware images. Undervolting is not that problematic than overclocking or overvolting, but you can still do stuff which is outside the hardware specification with that. Regards, Christian. Alex Ciao, Thorsten 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
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > On 20.02.24 15:45, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. > >>> > >> 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. > > > > The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board > > design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the > > validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially > > damage your hardware. > > Thx for the reply! Yeah, I was expecting something along those lines. > > Nevertheless it afaics still is a regression in the eyes of many users. > I'm not sure how Linus feels about this, but I wonder if we can find > some solution here so that users that really want to, can continue to do > what was possible out-of-the box before. Is that possible to realize or > even supported already? > > And sure, those users would be running their hardware outside of its > specifications. But is that different from overclocking (which the > driver allows, doesn't it? If not by all means please correct me!)? Sure. The driver has always had upper bound limits for overclocking, this change adds lower bounds checking for underclocking as well. When the silicon validation teams set the bounding box for a device, they set a range of values where it's reasonable to operate based on the characteristics of the design. If we did want to allow extended underclocking, we need a big warning in the logs at the very least. Alex > > Ciao, Thorsten > > >> 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 > >> """
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM 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. The change aligns the driver what has been validated on each board design. Windows uses the same limits. Using values lower than the validated range can lead to undefined behavior and could potentially damage your hardware. Alex > > 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.
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
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.
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
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.
Re: Kernel 6.7+ broke under-powering of my RX 6700XT. (Archlinux, mesa/amdgpu)
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.