From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark: Benchmarking
 userptr surfaces and impact
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:20:58 +0000
Message-ID: <52F3620A.4030903@linux.intel.com>
References: <20140205142517.GN11603@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
	<1391621586-2412-1-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
	<20140205175144.GK17001@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517FAFC0C9
	for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu,  6 Feb 2014 02:21:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140205175144.GK17001@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 02/05/2014 05:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:33:06PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality.
>>
>> Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is the
>> impact of having userptr surfaces in the process address space. Reason
>> for that is the impact of MMU notifiers on common address space
>> operations like munmap() which is per process.
>>
>> v2:
>>    * Moved to benchmarks.
>
> I'd just keep it as an igt testcase, beating on the kernel a bit can't
> hurt. And we have piles of other benchmark-like testcase already around.

Are you sure? Ben suggested to move it there and I actually agree it 
makes more sense since it is mostly testing indirect effects on 
(seemingly) unrelated operations. Not to mention benchmark directory 
already exists and it is rather empty compared to tests...

Tvrtko