<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [i915] i915/vcs1-sema exceeds i915/vcs1-busy value" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111788#c2">Comment # 2</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [i915] i915/vcs1-sema exceeds i915/vcs1-busy value" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111788">bug 111788</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com" title="Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>"> Tvrtko Ursulin</a> <pre>85% is real, Andrey run that test with 1000Hz sampling. Note that this is with GPU fixed at 700MHz and with default settings utilization is lower (~72% cap but I think more variance than then fixed scenario). We probably shouldn't read too much from this since we don't know how the other engines are looking. One of them could easily be the limiting factor. But it is interesting that the sampling error is largest in the 700Mhz case. Must be some unlucky latching of batch periods vs 200Hz sampling. I suggested to clamp sema to busy in the custom monitoring tool to start with. Question is whether we can afford going to 1000Hz in upstream. It would require testing for CPU usage, or maybe even going to like 500Hz would help.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>