From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: Performance drop on XDrawRectangles()
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:18:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20140108161851.GU4770@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <52CD7580.8040106@rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
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 mail-ea0-f170.google.com (mail-ea0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.215.170])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DD6FAB54
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed,  8 Jan 2014 08:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k10so918413eaj.15
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:17:35 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52CD7580.8040106@rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
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: Thomas Richter <richter@rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:57:52PM +0100, Thomas Richter wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> during the changes from 3.12rc7 to 3.13rc4, the performance of
> XDrawRectangles() dropped considerably. Interestingly, it is not the
> raw rectangles drawing operations that are slow, but it seems that
> the "per-call" overhead has increased by one magnitude. In specific,
> if you use the unmodified "x11pref" program:
> 
> x11pref -rect10
> 
> no substiantial changes are visible. However, if the rectangles are
> drawn one by one by changing:
> 
> /* snip: old version, lines 86ff of do_rects.c of the x11perf program */
> 
> void
> DoRectangles(XParms xp, Parms p, int reps)
> {
>     int i;
> 
>     for (i = 0; i != reps; i++) {
>         XFillRectangles(xp->d, xp->w, pgc, rects, p->objects);
>         if (pgc == xp->bggc)
>             pgc = xp->fggc;
>         else
>             pgc = xp->bggc;
> 	CheckAbort ();
>     }
> }
> 
> /* to the following : */
> 
> void
> DoRectangles(XParms xp, Parms p, int reps)
> {
>     int i;
>     int j;
> 
>     for (i = 0; i != reps; i++) {
>         for(j = 0;j < p->objects;j++) {
>           XFillRectangles(xp->d, xp->w, pgc, rects+j, 1);
>         }
>         if (pgc == xp->bggc)
>             pgc = xp->fggc;
>         else
>             pgc = xp->bggc;
> 	CheckAbort ();
>     }
> }
> 
> by instead drawing the rectangles one by one, the performance is
> decreased to one eigths of the original performance:
> 
> 400000 trep @   0.0687 msec ( 14600.0/sec): 10x10 rectangle (new)
> 2500000 trep @   0.0107 msec ( 93900.0/sec): 10x10 rectangle (old)
> 
> Thus, apparently, not the actual hardware acceleration degraded, but
> there is something in the call path that slowed down the call
> considerably.
> 
> Any idea what changed?

If the ddx is indeed the same and Chris doesn't have any ideas I guess a
full bisect of the kernel should help a lot. Could very well be that some
seemingly unrelated change in e.g. the scheduler caused havoc ...
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch