On 07/09/2018 15:13, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:45:14AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-09-07 09:37:00)
On 05/09/2018 15:09, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:49:30PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Notice in more places if we are running behind.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
---
benchmarks/gem_wsim.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c b/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
index 25af4d678ba4..b05e9760f419 100644
--- a/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
+++ b/benchmarks/gem_wsim.c
@@ -1718,6 +1718,21 @@ static bool sync_deps(struct workload *wrk, struct
w_step *w)
return synced;
}
+static unsigned int measured_usleep(unsigned int usec)
+{
+ struct timespec ts = { };
+ unsigned int slept;
+
+ slept = igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts);
+ igt_assert(slept == 0);
+ do {
+ usleep(usec - slept);
+ slept = igt_nsec_elapsed(&ts) / 1000;
+ } while (slept < usec);
clock_nanosleep(ABS)?
Hm I think I see what you mean. Rather than a relative sleep trying to
hit the loop period, ask from the kernel (or glibc, I don't know who
implements it) to sleep until an absolute target. This totally makes
sense and would simplify the code from one angle, I am just not sure if
absolute sleep can be relied upon any better to not oversleep. Well,
actually for scheduling delays not to affect the caller. However maybe
it doesn't matter since AFAIR my main problem were dropped period due
GPU activity (the first pair of warning messages in the patch), and
again AFAIR, it was quite hard to hit the second ones.
Right, it removes the loop but we still want to keep the measurement.
I guess we still want a loop if we're worried about signals? Not sure
why else we'd need a loop anyway. But the loop could be just something
like 'while (clock_nanosleep()) ;'
In this case just a case of copying measured_usleep verbatim from
another test because it was easy. Otherwise I think it's fine what you
suggest, especially since Chris also complained about using igt helpers
from outside tests/. So I'll respin to that effect.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
