On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:41:45PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:14:40AM -0700, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Inserting additional PTEs has no side-effect for us as the pfn are fixed > > for the entire time the object is resident in the global GTT. The > > downside is that we pay the entire cost of faulting the object upon the > > first hit, for which we in return receive the benefit of removing the > > per-page faulting overhead. > > > > On an Ivybridge i7-3720qm with 1600MHz DDR3, with 32 fences, using i-g-t/gem_fence_upload > > Upload rate for 2 linear surfaces: 8127MiB/s -> 8134MiB/s > > Upload rate for 2 tiled surfaces: 8607MiB/s -> 8625MiB/s > > Upload rate for 4 linear surfaces: 8127MiB/s -> 8127MiB/s > > Upload rate for 4 tiled surfaces: 8611MiB/s -> 8602MiB/s > > Upload rate for 8 linear surfaces: 8114MiB/s -> 8124MiB/s > > Upload rate for 8 tiled surfaces: 8601MiB/s -> 8603MiB/s > > Upload rate for 16 linear surfaces: 8110MiB/s -> 8123MiB/s > > Upload rate for 16 tiled surfaces: 8595MiB/s -> 8606MiB/s > > Upload rate for 32 linear surfaces: 8104MiB/s -> 8121MiB/s > > Upload rate for 32 tiled surfaces: 8589MiB/s -> 8605MiB/s > > Upload rate for 64 linear surfaces: 8107MiB/s -> 8121MiB/s > > Upload rate for 64 tiled surfaces: 2013MiB/s -> 3017MiB/s > > Testcase: i-g-t/gem_fence_upload > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Goel, Akash" <akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx> > > For reproducibility it would be nice to have the testcase info, assuming > it's something from i-g-t. Other than that, I think this change looks good. It was a proposed test case along with the last set of patches. I should have referenced it properly in the commit. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
