On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:57:48 -0300 Arthur Grillo <arthurgrillo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/02/24 16:45, Pekka Paalanen wrote: ... > > Would it be possible to have a standardised benchmark specifically > > for performance rather than correctness, in IGT or where-ever it > > would make sense? Then it would be simple to tell contributors to > > run this and report the numbers before and after. > > > > I would propose this kind of KMS layout: > > > > - CRTC size 3841 x 2161 > > - primary plane, XRGB8888, 3639 x 2161 @ 101,0 > > - overlay A, XBGR2101010, 3033 x 1777 @ 201,199 > > - overlay B, ARGB8888, 1507 x 1400 @ 1800,250 > > > > The sizes and positions are deliberately odd to try to avoid happy > > alignment accidents. The planes are big, which should let the pixel > > operations easily dominate performance measurement. There are > > different pixel formats, both opaque and semi-transparent. There is > > lots of plane overlap. The planes also do not cover the whole CRTC > > leaving the background visible a bit. > > > > There should be two FBs per each plane, flipped alternatingly each > > frame. Writeback should be active. Run this a number of frames, say, > > 100, and measure the kernel CPU time taken. It's supposed to take at > > least several seconds in total. > > > > I think something like this should be the base benchmark. One can > > add more to it, like rotated planes, YUV planes, etc. or switch > > settings on the existing planes. Maybe even FB_DAMAGE_CLIPS. Maybe > > one more overlay that is very tall and thin. > > > > Just an idea, what do you all think? > > Hi Pekka, > > I just finished writing this proposal using IGT. > > I got pretty interesting results: > > The mentioned commit 8356b97906503a02125c8d03c9b88a61ea46a05a took > around 13 seconds. While drm-misc/drm-misc-next took 36 seconds. > > I'm currently bisecting to be certain that the change to the > pixel-by-pixel is the culprit, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. > > I just need to do some final touches on the benchmark code and it > will be ready for revision. Awesome, thank you very much for doing that! pq
Attachment:
pgpmYWOE3rrWQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
