Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-06-18 08:40:25) > > On 18/06/2020 08:14, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-06-17 17:01:11) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Evaluation of userspace load balancing options was how this tool started > >> but since we have settled on doing it in the kernel. > >> > >> Tomorrow we will want to update the tool for new engine interfaces and all > >> this legacy code will just be a distraction. > >> > >> Rip out everything not related to explicit load balancing implemented via > >> context engine maps and adjust the workloads to use it. > > > > Hmm, if this is on the table, should we also then restrict > > load-balancing wsim to gen11+ so that we can use the timed loops rather > > nop batches? That would be a huge selling point, and I'll just keep an > > old checkout around for nop load balancing with all the trimmings. > > That was my plan for the next step yes. Just taking your patch without > further changes would already make it work I think. But also at some > point I want to convert the engine selection (and engine naming in > descriptors) to class:instance. > > Why do you need the nop/old balancing stuff? I would hope going forward > we only need to compare current balancing against any changes. So I'd > really like to remoev the userspace balancing stuff. There are still some cases where i915 is beaten by plain old contexts, usually that is a combination of semaphores and interrupt latency, but some I just don't understand. There is still an uncomfortably large variation between kernel releases, and comparing the regressions in different balancers is useful to narrow down the problem. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
