On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:26:29AM +0000, Gong, Zhipeng wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 5:59 PM > > To: Gong, Zhipeng > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rogozhkin, Dmitry V > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC drm/i915: Slaughter the thundering > > i915_wait_request herd > > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 05:39:54AM +0000, Gong, Zhipeng wrote: > > > Chris- > > > > > > The patch cannot be applied on the latest drm-intel-nightly directly. > > > I modified it a little bit to make it applied. > > > The patch can help much in HSW, but a little bit in BDW. > > > The test is to transcode 26 streams, which creates 244 threads. > > > > > > CPU util | w/o patch | w/ patch > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > HSW async 1 | 102% | 61% > > > HSW async 5 | 114% | 46% > > > BDW async 1 | 116% | 116% > > > BDW async 5 | 111% | 107% > > > > Could I get the perf report for the kernel time? One aspect that I find hard to > > believe is that it is not the execbuf/mutex-contention that is the ratelimiting > > step. > > Sure, what command would you like to run with "perf"? Each of them :) I want to be sure that I know what's going on with bdw (to check if my semaphores guess is correct), and comparing 1-vs-5 should help understand the contention points better. As for the actual command, something like perf report -G -d '[kernel.vmlinux]' | head -5000 should do, though you may have to modify the DSO list to match if you don't use a i915.ko builtin. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
