On 29/01/19 10:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
OK.
Sorry for the long delay, it ended-up in my spam folder. If you still
need it, the series is:
Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
