On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:31:30AM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Much better. The effect of the inline
gem:exec:fault:1MiB: +4.90%
gem:exec:fault:1MiB:forked: +7.99%
gem:exec:fault:16MiB: +22.94%
gem:exec:fault:16MiB:forked: +19.96%
gem:exec:fault:256MiB: +27.45%
gem:exec:fault:256MiB:forked: +36.89%
And it brings this series into parity with mine.
----
Avoiding the out-of-line call to sg_next() reduces the kernel execution
overhead by 10% in some workloads (for example the Unreal Engine 4 demo
Atlantis on 2GiB GTTs) which are dominated by the cost of inserting PTEs
due to texture thrashing. We can demonstrate this in a microbenchmark
that forces us to rebind the object on every execbuf, where we can
measure a 25% improvement, in the time required to execute an execbuf
requiring a texture to be rebound, for inlining the sg_next() for large
texture sizes.
Benchmark: igt/benchmarks/gem_exec_fault
Benchmark: igt/benchmarks/gem_exec_trace/Atlantis
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
