public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] drm/i915: wait for a vblank instead of 50ms when enabling FBC
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:26:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151113212638.GH4437@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151113212019.GG4437@intel.com>

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:20:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:03:43PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:53:41PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > Instead of waiting for 50ms, just wait until the next vblank, since
> > > it's the minimum requirement.
> > > 
> > > This moves PC7 residency on my specific BDW machine running Cinnamon
> > > from 60-70% to 84-89%. Without FBC, I get 20-25%. I'm using a
> > > 3200x1800 eDP panel. Notice: this was the case when the patch was
> > > originally proposed, the order of the FBC patches changed since then,
> > > so the actual numbers might be slightly different now.
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > >   - Rebase after changing the patch order.
> > >   - Update the commit message.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 12 +++---------
> > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > index 9418bd5..ea08714 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > @@ -919,9 +919,9 @@ struct i915_fbc {
> > >  
> > >  	struct intel_fbc_work {
> > >  		bool scheduled;
> > > +		u32 scheduled_vblank;
> > >  		struct work_struct work;
> > >  		struct drm_framebuffer *fb;
> > > -		unsigned long enable_jiffies;
> > >  	} work;
> > >  
> > >  	const char *no_fbc_reason;
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > index aa82075..72de8a1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > @@ -391,7 +391,6 @@ static void intel_fbc_work_fn(struct work_struct *__work)
> > >  		container_of(__work, struct drm_i915_private, fbc.work.work);
> > >  	struct intel_fbc_work *work = &dev_priv->fbc.work;
> > >  	struct intel_crtc *crtc = dev_priv->fbc.crtc;
> > > -	unsigned long delay_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(50);
> > >  
> > >  retry:
> > >  	/* Delay the actual enabling to let pageflipping cease and the
> > > @@ -400,14 +399,9 @@ retry:
> > >  	 * vblank to pass after disabling the FBC before we attempt
> > >  	 * to modify the control registers.
> > >  	 *
> > > -	 * A more complicated solution would involve tracking vblanks
> > > -	 * following the termination of the page-flipping sequence
> > > -	 * and indeed performing the enable as a co-routine and not
> > > -	 * waiting synchronously upon the vblank.
> > > -	 *
> > >  	 * WaFbcWaitForVBlankBeforeEnable:ilk,snb
> > >  	 */
> > > -	wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(work->enable_jiffies, delay_jiffies);
> > > +	intel_wait_for_vblank(dev_priv->dev, crtc->pipe);
> > >  
> > >  	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > >  
> > > @@ -416,7 +410,7 @@ retry:
> > >  		goto out;
> > >  
> > >  	/* Were we delayed again while this function was sleeping? */
> > > -	if (time_after(work->enable_jiffies + delay_jiffies, jiffies)) {
> > > +	if (drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base) == work->scheduled_vblank) {
> > >  		mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > >  		goto retry;
> > >  	}
> > > @@ -449,7 +443,7 @@ static void intel_fbc_schedule_activation(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > >  	 * jiffy count. */
> > >  	work->fb = crtc->base.primary->fb;
> > >  	work->scheduled = true;
> > > -	work->enable_jiffies = jiffies;
> > > +	work->scheduled_vblank = drm_crtc_vblank_count(&crtc->base);
> > 
> > Isn't the frame counter only incrementing whilst the vblank IRQ is
> > enabled? Ville?
> 
> I see a "+ if (drm_crtc_vblank_get(" earlier.

Hmm. Actually it's doing
"drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base) == work->scheduled_vblank)"
which looks rather like nonsense.

Not sure what the intention here was...

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-13 21:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-13 19:53 [PATCH 00/12] Yet another FBC series, v3 part 2 Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 01/12] drm/i915: fix the CFB size check Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 22:42   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 02/12] drm/i915: set dev_priv->fbc.crtc before scheduling the enable work Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 20:56   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 21:13     ` Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:43       ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-20 17:46       ` Daniel Stone
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 03/12] drm/i915: pass the crtc as an argument to intel_fbc_update() Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:12   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 04/12] drm/i915: introduce is_active/activate/deactivate to the FBC terminology Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:36   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 05/12] drm/i915: introduce intel_fbc_{enable, disable} Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:11   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 06/12] drm/i915: alloc/free the FBC CFB during enable/disable Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:19   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-19 20:16     ` Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 07/12] drm/i915: check for FBC planes in the same place as the pipes Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 22:45   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 08/12] drm/i915: use a single intel_fbc_work struct Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 09/12] drm/i915: wait for a vblank instead of 50ms when enabling FBC Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:03   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 21:17     ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-11-13 21:23       ` chris
2015-11-13 21:20     ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-11-13 21:26       ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2015-11-13 21:38         ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-11-13 23:17           ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-11-17 19:03             ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-11-17 19:29               ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 10/12] drm/i915: kill fbc.uncompressed_size Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 22:40   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: get rid of FBC {, de}activation messages Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 21:07   ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-13 19:53 ` [PATCH 12/12] drm/i915: only nuke FBC when a drawing operation triggers a flush Paulo Zanoni
2015-11-13 22:51   ` Chris Wilson

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=20151113212638.GH4437@intel.com \
    --to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=paulo.r.zanoni@intel.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