From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Batch copy_from_user for
 relocation processing
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:59:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20120326075955.GD4014@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <20120324123301.GB5914@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<1332619973-5127-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com (mail-we0-f177.google.com
	[74.125.82.177])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2EE9F69C
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werp11 with SMTP id p11so4905336wer.36
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1332619973-5127-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
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+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:12:53PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Originally the code tried to allocate a large enough array to perform
> the copy using vmalloc, performance wasn't great and throughput was
> improved by processing each individual relocation entry separately.
> This too is not as efficient as one would desire. A compromise would be
> to allocate a single page, or to allocate a few entries on the stack,
> and process the copy in batches. The latter gives simpler code and more
> consistent performance due to a lack of heuristic.
> 
> x11perf -copywinwin10:	n450/pnv	i3-330m		i5-2520m (cpu)
>                before: 	  249000	 785000		 1280000 (80%)
>                  page:	  264000	 896000		 1280000 (65%)
>              on-stack:	  264000	 902000		 1280000 (67%)
> 
> v2: Use 512-bytes of stack for batching rather than allocate a page.
> v3: Tidy the code slightly with more descriptive variable names
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
... and also queued up for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48