On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:19:02PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > I guess one test would be to see how many 1x1 [xN overdraw, say 1x1 > Window, but rendering internally at 1080p] clients we can run in > parallel whilst hitting 60fps. And then whether allowing multiple > spinners helps or hinders. I was thinking of a nice easy test that could demonstrate any advantage for spinning over waiting, and realised we already had such an igt. The trick is that it has to generate sufficient GPU load to actually require a wait, but not too high a GPU load such that we can see the impact from slow completion. I present igt/gem_exec_blt (modified to repeat the measurement and do an average over several runs): Time to blt 16384 bytes x 1: 21.000µs -> 5.800µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 2: 11.500µs -> 4.500µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 4: 6.750µs -> 3.750µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 8: 4.950µs -> 3.375µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 16: 3.825µs -> 3.175µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 32: 3.356µs -> 3.000µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 64: 3.259µs -> 2.909µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 128: 3.083µs -> 3.095µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 256: 3.104µs -> 2.979µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 512: 3.080µs -> 3.089µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 1024: 3.077µs -> 3.040µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 2048: 3.127µs -> 3.304µs Time to blt 16384 bytes x 4096: 3.279µs -> 3.265µs -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
