From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: read/write IOCTLs
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 08:16:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20110402151647.GA27656@snipes.kumite>
References: <1301621509-23107-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<b9dded$ih7ctg@orsmga002.jf.intel.com>
	<20110401070636.GA23731@snipes.kumite>
	<1bdc18$k2r37b@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
	<8762qx6c0k.fsf@pollan.anholt.net>
	<b7da2f$qure4k@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFA69E73D
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat,  2 Apr 2011 08:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b7da2f$qure4k@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 07:46:31AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 
> But perhaps we do need to reconsider the performance aspect. intel_gpu_top
> samples the ring HEAD and TAIL at around 10KHz and forcing gt-wake is
> about 50 microseconds... I hope I'm mistaken, because even batched that is
> doomed. Ben, do you mind checking that thought experiment with a little
> hard fact?

I can get some numbers for it... but I'd like to further the discussion
a bit since I have to go to the office to get a SNB, and typing is
easier than doing that right now :).

I too think we might be doomed. At the very least we have the
POSTING_READ, which is expensive. The udelays may or may not actually
occur (I'll find out). Let's not forget too that we do fix other tools,
not just intel_gpu_top, and those tools don't poll, and don't care about
timing (granted they're mostly less interesting too).

I think what we really need to try to defer the forcewake_put, as well
as something like the last patch I sent
<1301105269-23970-2-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> to remove the need
to protect force_wake_get with struct_mutex, and keep a refcount.  I'd
rather get the current stuff accepted, port the tools, and then make
improvements to the performance. However if you feel the order must be
another way, I can work with that.

> -Chris
> 

Thanks.
Ben