Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

xf86-video-modesetting Driver Optimization Helps Conserve Intel Power Consumption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nkalkhof
    replied
    Seems this optimization is only for newer Hardware. An i9-9900T with HD630 saves exactly 0 Watts with this patch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shtirlic
    replied
    Hmm, negative value for cursor will give some charge to my laptop, nice. Easy and free energy. Thank you Intel.

    Leave a comment:


  • binarybanana
    replied
    Originally posted by loganj View Post

    how do you measure that?
    powertop or a wattmeter.

    Leave a comment:


  • loganj
    replied
    Originally posted by kerneltoast View Post

    While the cursor is visible on the screen, actually. On my Alder Lake laptop, this change reduced power consumption by 2 W while the cursor was visible on the screen.
    how do you measure that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vorpal
    replied
    What on earth would make a larger cursor buffer use so much more power? That seems absurd, and worth trying to optimise: Presumably a 0x0 cursor would use even less power. Since reducing the cursor to 0x0 is obviously absurd, it seems worth investing time in making it more efficient instead of making users have to pick small cursors for power efficiency.

    Another reason that seems more useful: Someone with vision problems or on a high DPI screen might want a larger cursor and they shouldn't be penalised for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • kerneltoast
    replied
    Originally posted by heliosh View Post
    Uhm.. does this only save power, while the cursor is moved?
    While the cursor is visible on the screen, actually. On my Alder Lake laptop, this change reduced power consumption by 2 W while the cursor was visible on the screen.

    Leave a comment:


  • binarybanana
    replied
    Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post

    So intel was using a 256x256 buffer but only filling it up with 64x64 pixels?
    Hard to say if it's only Intel driver defaulting to 256x256 (could be the same on AMD/Nvidia, etc.) or if that even is the maximum cursor size on Intel or other hardware (could be higher), but yes, as far as I understand you get a 256x256 overlay for the cursor by default and with a smaller cursor image most of that is simply transparent. What's surprising is the difference in power consumption. Cursor size should not have that much of an effect, not when the difference in size is so small. The patch suggests it has to do with how Intel driver handles buffers for cursor images.

    Leave a comment:


  • varikonniemi
    replied
    Originally posted by binarybanana View Post

    That's not what the patch does. It just picks the smallest size overlay that fits the cursor, either 64x64, 128x128, 256x256, etc. Usually cursors fit into 64x64 or maybe 128x128. No need for a 256x256 overlay in most cases, but if you pick a huge cursor it should still work.
    So intel was using a 256x256 buffer but only filling it up with 64x64 pixels?

    Leave a comment:


  • FireBurn
    replied
    You either conserve power, or lower power consumption

    Leave a comment:


  • heliosh
    replied
    Uhm.. does this only save power, while the cursor is moved?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X