Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-01-29 17:55:45) > > > On 29/01/19 01:55, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Present the latency results in nanoseconds not RCS cycles. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c > > index de16322a6..ea44adc14 100644 > > --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c > > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ > > #define PREEMPT 0x2 > > > > static unsigned int ring_size; > > +static double rcs_clock; > > > > static void > > poll_ring(int fd, unsigned ring, const char *name) > > @@ -207,7 +208,7 @@ static void latency_on_ring(int fd, > > igt_cork_unplug(&c); > > > > gem_set_domain(fd, obj[1].handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT, 0); > > - gpu_latency = (results[repeats-1] - results[0]) / (double)(repeats-1); > > + gpu_latency = (results[repeats-1] - results[1]) / (double)(repeats-2); > > How come you don't like the value at 0? Maybe adding a comment would > make it clearer. I was thinking of trying to reduce some context warmup latency, but it doesn't matter and the spinner in the second patch is much more effective overall. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
