From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: set IDICOS to medium uncore
 resources
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 23:02:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20120506230253.3f0bac8d@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1336183139-10286-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<20120504134027.579ea57e@jbarnes-x220>
	<20120504210032.GI5443@phenom.ffwll.local>
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 cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760499EB3F
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sun,  6 May 2012 23:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120504210032.GI5443@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+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, "Kilarski,
	Bernard R" <bernard.r.kilarski@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, 4 May 2012 23:00:32 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 01:40:27PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri,  4 May 2012 18:58:59 -0700
> > Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm seeing about a 5% FPS improvement across various benchmarks on my
> > > IVB i3. Rumor has it that the higher end parts show even more benefit.
> > > 
> > > This derives from a patch originally given to me by Bernard. The docs
> > > are  confusing about the definition names (ie. medium really seems
> > > like max), but it would seem it gives more cache to the GT at the
> > > expense of uncore. This configuration makes the split most in favor
> > > of the GT. I've not tried the other IDICOS values.
> > 
> > Bringing the IRC discussion here.  I think this is really at the
> > expense (though not really) of the CPU, since it allows the GPU to use
> > more of the shared CPU/GPU cache in the uncore.
> > 
> > You can fix up the #define names if you want; the MEDIUM etc may be
> > from an old, incorrect doc.  They were added awhile back.
> 
> Another perk from me: Can you do some benchmarking of this for snb, too?
> -Daniel

I didn't see such gains on my SNB. I ran half as many benchmarks, one
had almost 2% improvement, the other had a slight performance
regression.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised by this, I may spend some more time to see
what happens.

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center