From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lauri Kasanen <cand@gmx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: Inline r100_mm_rreg
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:52:01 +0300
Message-ID: <20140411105201.57ea4a1b.cand@gmx.com>
References: <20140410160817.5275493d.cand@gmx.com>
 <CAKb7UvgGh8pX8cQM_7TdpEN0grAmRCbf8_+aCw9RBL34epT0JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140410214634.ba440af5.cand@gmx.com>
 <CAKb7UvgpDvE9et8Uxt6=qPH-a3bZ3p5eEXupLFhZVNEqA6B12A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5346F13B.6060604@vodafone.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7C76ED32
 for <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5346F13B.6060604@vodafone.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/dri-devel>,
 <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel>,
 <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "dri-devel" <dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Christian =?ISO-8859-15?Q?K=F6nig?= <deathsimple@vodafone.de>
Cc: "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:03 +0200
Christian K=F6nig <deathsimple@vodafone.de> wrote:

> >>> Quick thought from someone entirely unfamiliar with the hardware:
> >>> perhaps you can get the performance benefit without the size increase
> >>> by moving the else portion into a non-inline function? I'm guessing
> >>> that most accesses happen in the "if" branch.
> >> The function call overhead is about equal to branching overhead, so
> >> splitting it would only help about half that. It's called from many
> >> places, and a lot of calls per sec.
> =

> Actually direct register access shouldn't be necessary so often. Apart =

> from page flips, write/read pointer updates and irq processing there =

> shouldn't be so many of them. Could you clarify a bit more what issue =

> you are seeing here?

Too much cpu usage for such a simple function. 2% makes it #2 in top-10
radeon.ko functions, right after evergreen_cs_parse. For reference, #3
(radeon_cs_packet_parse) is only 0.5%, one fourth of this function's
usage.

As proved by the perf increase, it's called often enough that getting
rid of the function call overhead (and compiling the if out
compile-time) helps measurably.

- Lauri