On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Lauri Kasanen <c...@gmx.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:03:53 +0100 > Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Lauri Kasanen <c...@gmx.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:54:04 +0100 >> > Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It's not accurate at all, it's actually pretty random. The stats >> >> should not be called "num_reads" and "num_writes", they should be >> >> called "num_state_changes", and the number of resource state changes >> >> has nothing to do with how the resources affect GPU performance. You >> >> might get a pretty high score for unimportant resources with your >> >> approach. It's as useful as assigning a random number to each >> >> resource. >> > >> > Yes, more accurate names would be "times_bound_for_reads" and >> > "times_bound_for_writes", but those are too long names for my taste ;) >> >> Yeah, and those 2 are completely useless, because the number of times >> a resource is bound is irrelevant and won't help us in any way. Like I >> said, you could just assign a random number to "times_bound_for_*" in >> radeon_drm_cs_flush and it would perform the same or better, because >> random statistics are better than bad statistics. > > Can you elaborate? How often does an app bind a texture without > bothering to read from it? The engines I've worked with take care to > unbind textures they are not using. > > The read pattern is half, but the fact that it's being read is the > other half of the equation.
I think you misunderstood what I had said. Please read my emails again. BTW if you just need to know if a resource has been used for read or write, you can check (radeon_cs_context::relocs[i]->read_domains != 0) and (radeon_cs_context::relocs[i]->write_domain != 0). These are the stats that the kernel gets, but the kernel doesn't use them for anything useful. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
