Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-26 12:27:33) > > On 25/09/2017 17:44, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-25 16:15:01) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Add busy and busy-avg balancers which make balancing > >> decisions by looking at engine busyness via the i915 PMU. > > > > "And thus are able to make decisions on the actual instantaneous load of > > the system, and not use metrics that lag behind by a batch or two. In > > doing so, each client should be able to greedily maximise their own > > usage of the system, leading to improved load balancing even in the face > > of other uncooperative clients. On the other hand, we are only using the > > instantaneous load without coupling in the predictive factor for > > dispatch and execution length." > > Ok, thanks for the text. > > > Hmm, do you not want to sum busy + queued? Or at least compare! :) > > How to add apples and oranges? :) Queued * busy [0.0 - 1.0] ? Just switch bases to bananas. Hmm, I keep going back to that we do was a loadavg type of stat. Something that tells us the current (and historical) run length. Kind of ties into what we want to measure through QUEUED. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
