[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] i915/gem_exec_latency: Normalize results into ns

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-02-12 23:06:06)
> 
> 
> On 29/01/19 10:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-01-29 17:55:45)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29/01/19 01:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> Present the latency results in nanoseconds not RCS cycles.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>> ---
> >>>    tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>    1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c
> >>> index de16322a6..ea44adc14 100644
> >>> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c
> >>> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_latency.c
> >>> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
> >>>    #define PREEMPT 0x2
> >>>    
> >>>    static unsigned int ring_size;
> >>> +static double rcs_clock;
> >>>    
> >>>    static void
> >>>    poll_ring(int fd, unsigned ring, const char *name)
> >>> @@ -207,7 +208,7 @@ static void latency_on_ring(int fd,
> >>>                igt_cork_unplug(&c);
> >>>    
> >>>        gem_set_domain(fd, obj[1].handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT, 0);
> >>> -     gpu_latency = (results[repeats-1] - results[0]) / (double)(repeats-1);
> >>> +     gpu_latency = (results[repeats-1] - results[1]) / (double)(repeats-2);
> >>
> >> How come you don't like the value at 0? Maybe adding a comment would
> >> make it clearer.
> > 
> > I was thinking of trying to reduce some context warmup latency, but
> > it doesn't matter and the spinner in the second patch is much more
> > effective overall.
> 
> OK.
> 
> Sorry for the long delay, it ended-up in my spam folder. If you still 
> need it, the series is:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>

As it happens... Thanks,
-Chris