Re: __i915_spin_request() sucks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/13/2015 03:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:22:52AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 11/13/2015 09:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 08:36 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
Previous patch was obvious pre-coffee crap, this should work for using
ktime to spin max 1usec.

1us seems a tad low.  I doubt the little wooden gears and pulleys of my
core2 Toshiba Satellite lappy can get one loop ground out in a usec :)

Maybe it is, it's based off the original intent of the function,
though. See the original commit referenced.

I've been looking at numbers from one laptop and I can set the timeout
at 2us before we see a steep decline in what is more or less synchronous
request handling (which affects a variety of rendering workloads).

Alright, at least that's a vast improvement from 10ms. If you send me something tested, I can try it here.

Looking around, other busy loops seem to use local_clock() (i.e. rdstcll
with a fair wind). Is that worth using here?

Honestly, don't think it matters too much for this case. You'd have to disable preempt to use local_clock(), fwiw. It is a faster variant though, but the RT people might hate you for 2us preempt disables :-)

--
Jens Axboe

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux