-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
galp5 profiles and no longer require all profile attributes to be set #212
Conversation
…like it, add galp5 profiles
@jackpot51 thanks for the feedback, updated with your suggestions and tested on my galp5. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before changes, constraint_0_power_limit_uw
was always 28000000
and constraint_1_power_limit
was always 51000000
on galp5. After changes, constraint_1
still doesn't change, but constraint_0
gets set to 12000000
in battery
, 28000000
in balanced
, and 40000000
in performance
.
While stressing the galp5, I observed an energy rate of 66W (which then dropped to 52W after a few minutes) in performance
. Switching to battery
caused a dramatic decrease in energy rate to 19W, increasing the estimated remaining battery time from 49 minutes to 2.2 hours. Switching back to performance brought the energy rate back up. This seems to indicate that the options are working as intended. (Before the change, the rate was around 39W in performance
and 28W in battery
, not as effective.)
On lemp9, both power limits are still set when switching profiles; on gaze15, both limits are still left unchanged. General regression testing passed.
I just want to clarify, the truly broken experience seem to be the Battery Mode. When set to Battery Mode and CPU is at high utilization, it starts at 2.4 GHz, but then slowly ramps down to 218 MHz! (2.2x multiplier). I don't think that was intended. If the CPU can clock down to 2.2x (I didn't think that was possible, per Intel's spec minimum is 4x), it should only do so at or near idle, not when there is load. I would also suggest 4x as the minimum multiplier since it may take some time for CPU to ramp up to even update the screen when bringing up the Activities view (using the Super button). |
Thanks for that, it should be easy to adjust. I will make a PR soon. |
@jackpot51 for my own curiosity, why would it be a bad idea to maintain the same pl1 (40) for all profiles and just vary the thermal limit? |
Mainly to prevent runaway thermal issues that would cause "sputtering", similar to what @ZeddieXX is experiencing but worse. It would run 40W until it hits the thermal limit, which would happen very quickly. Then it would stall and fall down to very low wattage. Then it cools and hits 40W again, the cycle repeating. |
Fixes #210
Observations from running these profiles on an i7 galp5 w/o dGPU: