From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/gem_evict_everything: Use bo_count
 instead of count where intended
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:33:28 +0000
Message-ID: <1386333208.6066.24.camel@tursulin-linux.isw.intel.com>
References: <1386329869-12379-1-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
	<20131206121240.GL27344@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A52FBB18
	for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri,  6 Dec 2013 04:33:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131206121240.GL27344@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 13:12 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 11:37:49AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> > 
> > Don't see that it causes a problem but it looks it was intended
> > to use bo_count at these places.
> > 
> > Also using count to determine number of processes does not make
> > sense unless thousands of cores.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/gem_evict_everything.c | 12 +++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_evict_everything.c b/tests/gem_evict_everything.c
> > index 41abef7..90c3ae1 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_evict_everything.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_evict_everything.c
> > @@ -135,8 +135,6 @@ static void exchange_uint32_t(void *array, unsigned i, unsigned j)
> >  	i_arr[j] = i_tmp;
> >  }
> >  
> > -#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b) ? (a) : (b))
> > -
> >  #define INTERRUPTIBLE	(1 << 0)
> >  #define SWAPPING	(1 << 1)
> >  #define DUP_DRMFD	(1 << 2)
> > @@ -168,7 +166,7 @@ static void forked_evictions(int fd, int size, int count,
> >  	for (n = 0; n < bo_count; n++)
> >  		bo[n] = gem_create(fd, size);
> >  
> > -	igt_fork(i, min(count, min(num_threads * 5, 12))) {
> > +	igt_fork(i, num_threads * 4) {
> 
> You've killed the min( , 12) here ... that'll hurt on big desktops.
> Otherwise patch looks good.

It was hard for me to know what kind of stress was desired there.
Thinking of typical cases, single core single thread gives five
"stressers", more typical 2x1 gives 10. So it seems the whole
calculation will typically be between 10 and 12, 5 and 12 conditionally.
Which almost sounds a bit pointless.. I mean to have the calculation as
it was at all.

Tvrtko