Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Thomas Hellström
Keith Packard wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 20:11 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote: I'm still confused by your test setup... Stepping back from cache metaphysics, why doesn't classic pin the hardware, if it's still got 60% cpu to burn? glxgears under classic is definitely not pinning

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Keith Whitwell
So possibilities are: - batchbuffer starvation -- has I was going to say 'has this changed significantly' -- and the answer is that it has of course, with the bufmgr_fake changes... I can't tell by quick inspection if these are a likely culprit, but it's certainly a signifcant set of changes

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Keith Whitwell
* Classic is apparently doing suboptimal syncs that limits its performance in some cases (gears, teapot and perhaps openarena), one should not benchmark framerates against classic in those cases. As I said elsewhere, I'd like to get to the bottom of this -- it wasn't always this way.

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Thomas Hellström
Keith Whitwell wrote: * Classic is apparently doing suboptimal syncs that limits its performance in some cases (gears, teapot and perhaps openarena), one should not benchmark framerates against classic in those cases. As I said elsewhere, I'd like to get to the bottom of this

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Dave Airlie
So possibilities are: - batchbuffer starvation -- has - over-throttling in swapbuffers -- I think we used to let it get two frames ahead - has this changed? I would suspect this broke somehow at some point.. Dave.

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Johannes Engel
Hi, everyone, I wonder how you got any OpenGL-app running using Keith's GEM tree. For me even glxgears turns the screen black although AFAIK not necessarily crashing the Xserver. I will further investigate on that. Best regards, Johannes

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Johannes Engel
Johannes Engel schrieb: Hi, everyone, I wonder how you got any OpenGL-app running using Keith's GEM tree. For me even glxgears turns the screen black although AFAIK not necessarily crashing the Xserver. I will further investigate on that. OK, at least that seems not to be reproducible,

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Thomas Hellström
Johannes Engel wrote: Hi, everyone, I wonder how you got any OpenGL-app running using Keith's GEM tree. For me even glxgears turns the screen black although AFAIK not necessarily crashing the Xserver. I will further investigate on that. Best regards, Johannes Johannes, Double-check

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-20 Thread Johannes Engel
Thomas Hellström schrieb: Johannes Engel wrote: Hi, everyone, I wonder how you got any OpenGL-app running using Keith's GEM tree. For me even glxgears turns the screen black although AFAIK not necessarily crashing the Xserver. I will further investigate on that. Best regards, Johannes

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Thomas Hellström
Keith Whitwell wrote: Texdown 1327MB/s (i915tex) 551MB/s (master, ttm) 572MB/s (master, no-ttm) Texdown, subimage 1014MB/s (i915tex) 134MB/s (master, ttm) 148MB/s (master, no-ttm) Gem on this machine (kernel 2.6.24) is hitting Texdown 342MB/s Texdown, subimage

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 05:09 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote: I think the latter is the significant result -- none of these experiments in memory management significantly change the command stream the hardware has to operate on, so what we're varying essentially is the CPU behaviour to acheive

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Thomas Hellström
Keith Packard wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 05:09 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote: I think the latter is the significant result -- none of these experiments in memory management significantly change the command stream the hardware has to operate on, so what we're varying essentially is the

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 20:32 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: Keith Packard wrote: On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 05:09 -0700, Keith Whitwell wrote: I think the latter is the significant result -- none of these experiments in memory management significantly change the command stream the

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Keith Whitwell
glxgears uses 40% of the CPU in both classic and gem. Note that the gem version takes about 20 seconds to reach a steady state -- the gem driver isn't clearing the gtt actively and so glxgears gets far ahead of the gpu. My theory is that this shows that using cache-aware copies from a

Re: i915 performance, master, i915tex gem

2008-05-19 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 20:11 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote: I'm still confused by your test setup... Stepping back from cache metaphysics, why doesn't classic pin the hardware, if it's still got 60% cpu to burn? glxgears under classic is definitely not pinning the hardware -- the 'intel_idle'