From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/i915: Reduce locking in command submission
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:13:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54B64147.3090404@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141215130608.GX27182@phenom.ffwll.local>
On 12/15/2014 01:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 03:41:34PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> Eliminate six needless spin lock/unlock pairs when writing ELSP.
>>
>> RFC for now with some #define copy and paste.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> Cc: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>
>
> Yeah makes sense. I'm on the fence whether we should do an all-uppercase
> conversion of the raw mmio macros, would be a nothc more consistent. And
> some perf data for this patch would be good, too.
With regards to perf data, Ben Widawsky was kind enough to give this
patch a spin on his perf test bed (CHV), on a range of OGL benchmarks.
Apparently only two results have "confidence t-score" > 95% (statistics
is not my area), bench_OglBatch4 and bench_OglDeferred which show 0.51%
and 0.73% gains respectively.
Looking just on the basis of those two, I'd say the patch is worth
cleaning up since it is a good gain for such a simple change.
Other results show anything from 4.29% slowdown (!*)
(bench_OglTexFilterAniso) to a 7.08% gain (bench_OglMultithreaded).
Average across all benchmarks is a 0.38% gain.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Tvrtko
* I can't really understand regressions for some tests?!
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-14 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-11 15:41 [RFC] drm/i915: Reduce locking in command submission Tvrtko Ursulin
2014-12-15 13:06 ` Daniel Vetter
2014-12-16 13:34 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-01-14 10:13 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2015-01-15 11:21 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-01-15 16:54 ` Ben Widawsky
2015-01-15 17:05 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-01-15 23:42 ` Ben Widawsky
2015-01-16 0:19 ` shuang.he
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=54B64147.3090404@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=benjamin.widawsky@intel.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
/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