From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: ww-mutex performance tests?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:41:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d207c170-ed5b-5d7d-9331-8861e34a3561@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uHxDqZorKZS0SOabsSsbHtXECnKsrm+mixoERcntVVjHw@mail.gmail.com>
Am 04.04.2018 um 20:02 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Op 02-04-18 om 19:49 schreef Thomas Hellstrom:
>>> Maarten, Daniel,
>>>
>>> Do we have any ww-mutex performance tests somewhere that can be used to test the impact of implementation details on various locking scenarios?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>>
>> The thing that comes to my mind are some of the kms_cursor_legacy tests that have been proven to be sensitive to locking issues before.
>> All subtests with (pipe-*/all-pipes)-(single/forked/torture)-(bo/move) try to do cursor updates as fast as possible, and report how many updates have been done.
> AMD folks have a bunch of tests to exercise their CS paths I think,
> that should be interesting for the multi-ww_mutex/backoff paths,
> adding Christian et al.
Well not a dedicated test for this, but at least I usually run glmark
with thread offloading disabled to measure the command submission overhead.
Except for the usual stuff like copying things from userspace the last
time I looked our command submission overhead was dominated by work done
for individual BOs.
Not sure how much of that accounts for locking the ww_mutex of the BOs,
but I would guess it is quite a bit.
Christian.
> -Daniel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-05 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-02 17:49 ww-mutex performance tests? Thomas Hellstrom
2018-04-03 8:37 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2018-04-04 17:12 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2018-04-04 18:02 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-04-05 6:41 ` Christian König [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d207c170-ed5b-5d7d-9331-8861e34a3561@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=alexdeucher@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=thellstrom@vmware.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox