On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:19:33AM +0000, Gong, Zhipeng wrote: > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:31:22PM +0000, Gong, Zhipeng wrote: > > > > > > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > > > Do you also have a relative perf statistics like op/s we can compare > > > > to make sure we aren't just stalling the whole system? > > > > > > > Could you please provide the commands about how to check it? > > > > I was presuming your workload has some measure of efficiency/throughput? > > It is one thing to say we are using 10% less CPU (per second), but the task is > > running 2x as long! > We use execute time as a measurement, the patch affects the execution time > for our cases slightly. > > Exec time(s) | w/o patch | w/patch > ----------------------------------------------- > BDW async 1 | 65.00 | 65.25 > BDW async 5 | 68.50 | 66.42 That's reassuring. > > > > > > How much cpu time is left in the i915_wait_request branch? i.e. how > > > > close to the limit are we with chasing this path? > > > Could you please provide the commands here either? :) > > > > Check the perf callgraph. > > Now the most of time is in io_schedule_timeout > __i915_wait_request > |--64.04%-- io_schedule_timeout > |--22.04%-- intel_engine_add_wakeup > |--3.13%-- prepare_to_wait > |--2.99%-- gen6_rps_boost > |-... No more busywaits, and most of the time is spent kicking the next process or doing the insertion sort into the waiting rbtree. What's the ratio now of __i915_wait_request to the next hot function? And who are the chief callers of __i915_wait_request? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
