[Intel-gfx] intel graphics performance thought

[Eric Anholt]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:35:33 +0100, Peter Clifton <pcjc2 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:44 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> 
> > So, what if the problem is that our URB allocations aren't big enough?
> > I would expect that to look kind of like what I'm seeing.  One
> > experiment would be to go double the preferred size of each stage in
> > brw_urb.c one by one -- is one stage's URB allocation a limit?  Or, am I
> > on the right track at all (go reduce all the preferred sizes to 1/2 and
> > see if that hurts)?
>
> I think what we really need for better understanding is a per-frame
> profile of when different execution units are busy. It sounds like you
> have something like this in development for Ironlake (unfortunately I'm
> only on GM45 here).

Sadly, it's nothing that awesome. Just like intel_gpu_top, but a
different set of bits.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20101026/c7a02c8d/attachment.sig>