On 03/19/2015 04:04 PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:33:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>>> On 03/18/2015 10:30 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:53:16AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:33:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> > On 03/18/2015 10:30 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:53:16AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > >>drm_vblank_count_and_time() doesn't return the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:13:15PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Pretty much an igt that compared the speed of just querying the hw
> counter vs querying with a regular vblank interrupt would be ideal for
> measuring the impact here.
ickle at crystalwell:/usr/src/intel-gpu-tools$ sudo
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On 03/18/2015 10:30 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:53:16AM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >>drm_vblank_count_and_time() doesn't return the correct sequence number
> >>while the vblank interrupt is disabled,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:04:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> Is enabling the interrupts the expensive part, or is it the actual
> double timestamp read + scanout pos read? Or is it due to the several
> spinlocks we have in this code?
Chiefly it was the read during disable, then the
