Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-08-14 20:41:32)
>> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-08-14 19:41:14)
>> > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > > - entry = READ_ONCE(*csb);
>> > > - if (unlikely(entry == -1)) {
>> > > - preempt_disable();
>> > > - if (wait_for_atomic_us((entry = READ_ONCE(*csb)) != -1, 50))
>> >
>> > If we get this deep into desperation, should we start to apply more
>> > pressure. Ie, rmb instead of just instructing the compiler. And could also
>> > start to invalidate the entry which obviously if of no use.
>>
>> I had a rmb() here; removing it did not appear to make any difference
>> whatsoever to the average delay. The extreme case would be a full
>> mb(); clflush(); mb() read. I haven't timed the average for that....
>
> +static inline u64 __csb_read(u64 *csb)
> +{
> + mb();
> + clflush(csb);
> + mb();
> +
> + return READ_ONCE(*csb);
> +}
>
> [ 1554.274204] csb: 1793 misses, avg 475ns, max 14727ns
>
> So no better on average or at worst.
Well thanks for trying it out. We can attach it to hsdes as
a note that there is not much to be done on cpu side :O
-Mika
> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
