[Intel-gfx] Reasons for no ring-buffer on 2.6.27?
eric at anholt.net
Wed Oct 15 17:17:29 CEST 2008
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 16:48 +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> I've played a bit with latest intel/xserver git and noticed very poor
> performance on Fedora-10-beta.
> When I execute exactly the same x/driver binaries on a self-compiled
> 184.108.40.206 on Fedora8 performance was as expected (well, actually a bit
> worse than I hoped for ;) )
> What I noticed was that according to sysprof a lot of time was spent
> inside flush-functions like intel-batch-flush (called by
> i830exaDoneSolid ~70% and i830sync ~25%), and that some driver
> initialization messages differ in Xorg.log.
> Any idea why a ring-buffer is initialized and used with 220.127.116.11 and
> it works so well for my testcase, but not with 2.6.27?
Batchbuffers are dispatched through the ringbuffer. The ring is used in
either case (it's the only way to program acceleration).
This is probably the EXA bug introduced with UXA that keithp said he was
going to fix the other day, but I don't see in the tree yet. It's there
Author: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
Date: Wed Oct 15 08:12:11 2008 -0700
Remove gratuitous flushing in EXA after solid operations.
This snuck in with the UXA rename commit.
Thanks for the sysprof results, it easily reminded me of the correct issue.
eric at anholt.net eric.anholt at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Intel-gfx