On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:41:02AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:24:06AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:02:18AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:45:07AM -0700, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 08, 201
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 03:49:02PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 05/10/2014 10:10 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> >From: Brad Volkin
> >
> >For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> >a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
> >
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:24:06AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:02:18AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:45:07AM -0700, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:27:16AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 08, 201
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:02:18AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:45:07AM -0700, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:27:16AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brad,
On 05/10/2014 10:10 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
From: Brad Volkin
For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is spent in the
command loo
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 02:10:43PM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
> drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is
From: Brad Volkin
For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is spent in the
command lookup code. Converting that from the current naive search to
a
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:50:40AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2014 04:27 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Brad,
> >>
> >> On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> - BUG_ON
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:45:07AM -0700, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:27:16AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Brad,
> > >
> > > On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > >
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:53:38AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:15:44AM -0700, Lespiau, Damien wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:05:07PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:15:44AM -0700, Lespiau, Damien wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:05:07PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Brad Volkin
> > > +/*
> > > + * Different command ranges have different num
On 05/08/2014 04:27 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Hi Brad,
On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
[snip]
- BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
+ BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_t
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:27:16AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Brad,
> >
> > On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > - BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
> > > + BUG_ON(!validate_
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:42:16AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin
> >
> > For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> > a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:56:05AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > - BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
> > + BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_table_count));
> > BUG_ON(!validate_regs_
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:44:57PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> I was hoping we could compute a (near) minimal perfect hash function
> though. Let me try to dig a bit.
So, I went a bit further here and we can actually generate a minimal
perfect hash function. I took the 44 HSW render opcodes and
On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
From: Brad Volkin
For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is spent in the
command loo
On 05/08/2014 02:02 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:25:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/08/2014 12:44 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Hi Brad,
On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
[sn
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:05:07PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin
> > +/*
> > + * Different command ranges have different numbers of bits for the opcode.
> > + * In order to use the opcode bits, and o
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
> +/*
> + * Different command ranges have different numbers of bits for the opcode.
> + * In order to use the opcode bits, and only the opcode bits, for the hash
> key
> + * we should use the MI_* comm
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:25:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2014 12:44 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> >On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>Hi Brad,
> >>
> >>On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>>- BUG_ON(!valid
On 05/08/2014 12:44 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Hi Brad,
On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
[snip]
- BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
+ BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_tabl
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >-BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
> >+BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_table_count));
> > BUG_ON(!validate_regs_
Hi Brad,
On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
[snip]
- BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
+ BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_table_count));
BUG_ON(!validate_regs_sorted(ring));
+
+ BUG_ON(init_hash_table(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_ta
Could someone help to review this patch please? It provides a nice
improvement to the command parser's performance, so I'd like to get
this one in.
Thanks,
Brad
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> For clients that submit large batch buffers
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Volkin, Bradley D
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
>> > From: Brad Volkin
>> >
>> > For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:53:30AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin
> >
> > For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> > a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT syst
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:42:56AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin
> >
> > For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> > a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT syst
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
> drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
> drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is spent in
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 08:22:08AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
> a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
> drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is
From: Brad Volkin
For clients that submit large batch buffers the command parser has
a substantial impact on performance. On my HSW ULT system performance
drops as much as ~20% on some tests. Most of the time is spent in the
command lookup code. Converting that from the current naive search to
a
32 matches
Mail list logo
