On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:21:08PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 09-02-18 om 11:04 schreef Chris Wilson:
> > Quoting Maarten Lankhorst (2018-02-09 09:53:59)
> >> Some cleanups to move the uncore.lock around vblank evasion, so run
> >> to completion without racing on uncore.lock. Hopefully this will reduce
> >> the chance of underruns, and perhaps allows us to decrease 
> >> VBLANK_EVASION_TIME_US as well as a followup patch.
> >>
> >> Tested on KBL and BSW.
> > * shivers
> >
> > uncore.lock is a brutally contested lock. Ville's patches did work on
> > splitting the uncore.lock into forcewake and display variants, which
> > cuts down on the nasty side effects.
> >
> > Latency profiling, another item for the CI/QA wishlist.
> > -Chris
> Yeah, unfortunately this is not different from status quo. We already
> require everything inside vblank evasion to run as fast as possible,
> and it's down to a list of register writes and a few reads. Those
> already need the uncore.lock, so all we do now is being more explicit
> about when we take it and eliminate contention when we write out the
> register values.

Would be nice to have some results for this though. IIRC when I was
benchmarking my update optimizations and the de_lock stuff I was
simply logging how long the updates take, and staring at histograms
of that after running a bunch of igts and whatnot. I'm not sure I
have the results anymore, but IIRC I did see some improvement.

Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to