On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:32:20 +0200 Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 11.04.2014 11:54, schrieb Lauri Kasanen: > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:33:08 +0200 > > Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> Actually direct register access shouldn't be necessary so often. Apart > >>>> from page flips, write/read pointer updates and irq processing there > >>>> shouldn't be so many of them. Could you clarify a bit more what issue > >>>> you are seeing here? > >>> Too much cpu usage for such a simple function. 2% makes it #2 in top-10 > >>> radeon.ko functions, right after evergreen_cs_parse. For reference, #3 > >>> (radeon_cs_packet_parse) is only 0.5%, one fourth of this function's > >>> usage. > >> I think you misunderstood me here. I do believe your numbers that it > >> makes a noticeable difference. > >> > >> But I've did a couple of perf tests recently on SI and CIK while hacking > >> on VM support, and IIRC r100_mm_rreg didn't showed up in the top 10 on > >> those systems. > >> > >> So what puzzles me is who the hack is calling r100_mm_rreg so often that > >> it makes a noticeable difference on evergreen/NI? > > The biggest caller is cayman_cp_int_cntl_setup. Before inlining it took > > 0.0013%, after it takes 1%. > > Sounds like somebody is constantly turning interrupts on and off. I instrumented radeon_irq_set. There's about 12 calls to that per sec, most coming from radeon_irq_kms_sw_irq_get and radeon_irq_kms_sw_irq_put. So from your earlier mail I gather this amount of IRQ setting is normal. It's just taking a lot of cpu for some reason. - Lauri _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
