On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:35:33 +0100, Peter Clifton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:44 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > So, what if the problem is that our URB allocations aren't big enough? > > I would expect that to look kind of like what I'm seeing. One > > experiment would be to go double the preferred size of each stage in > > brw_urb.c one by one -- is one stage's URB allocation a limit? Or, am I > > on the right track at all (go reduce all the preferred sizes to 1/2 and > > see if that hurts)? > > I think what we really need for better understanding is a per-frame > profile of when different execution units are busy. It sounds like you > have something like this in development for Ironlake (unfortunately I'm > only on GM45 here).
Sadly, it's nothing that awesome. Just like intel_gpu_top, but a different set of bits.
pgphbfenJXcBO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
