Hi Thomas, On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:51:40PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 28.08.19 um 11:37 schrieb Rong Chen: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On 8/28/19 1:16 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Am 27.08.19 um 14:33 schrieb Chen, Rong A: > >>> Both patches have little impact on the performance from our side. > >> Thanks for testing. Too bad they doesn't solve the issue. > >> > >> There's another patch attached. Could you please tests this as well? > >> Thanks a lot! > >> > >> The patch comes from Daniel Vetter after discussing the problem on IRC. > >> The idea of the patch is that the old mgag200 code might display much > >> less frames that the generic code, because mgag200 only prints from > >> non-atomic context. If we simulate this with the generic code, we should > >> see roughly the original performance. > >> > >> > > > > It's cool, the patch "usecansleep.patch" can fix the issue. > > Thank you for testing. But don't get too excited, because the patch > simulates a bug that was present in the original mgag200 code. A > significant number of frames are simply skipped. That is apparently the > reason why it's faster. Thanks for the detailed info, so the original code skips time-consuming work inside atomic context on purpose. Is there any space to optmise it? If 2 scheduled update worker are handled at almost same time, can one be skipped? Thanks, Feng > > Best regards > Thomas _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
