Hi

Am 04.09.19 um 08:27 schrieb Feng Tang:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:51:40PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 28.08.19 um 11:37 schrieb Rong Chen:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> On 8/28/19 1:16 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Am 27.08.19 um 14:33 schrieb Chen, Rong A:
>>>>> Both patches have little impact on the performance from our side.
>>>> Thanks for testing. Too bad they doesn't solve the issue.
>>>>
>>>> There's another patch attached. Could you please tests this as well?
>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>
>>>> The patch comes from Daniel Vetter after discussing the problem on IRC.
>>>> The idea of the patch is that the old mgag200 code might display much
>>>> less frames that the generic code, because mgag200 only prints from
>>>> non-atomic context. If we simulate this with the generic code, we should
>>>> see roughly the original performance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's cool, the patch "usecansleep.patch" can fix the issue.
>>
>> Thank you for testing. But don't get too excited, because the patch
>> simulates a bug that was present in the original mgag200 code. A
>> significant number of frames are simply skipped. That is apparently the
>> reason why it's faster.
> 
> Thanks for the detailed info, so the original code skips time-consuming
> work inside atomic context on purpose. Is there any space to optmise it?
> If 2 scheduled update worker are handled at almost same time, can one be
> skipped?

We discussed ideas on IRC and decided that screen updates could be
synchronized with vblank intervals. This may give some rate limiting to
the output.

If you like, you could try the patch set at [1]. It adds the respective
code to console and mgag200.

Best regards
Thomas

[1]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2019-September/234850.html

> 
> Thanks,
> Feng
> 
>>
>> Best regards
>> Thomas

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)