[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] drm/i915: read-read semaphore optimization

[Eric Anholt]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:20:55 -0800, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 01:50 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:36:15AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2011 09:22 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:52:08 -0800, Ben Widawsky<ben at bwidawsk.net>  wrote:
> >>>> Since we don't differentiate on the different GPU read domains, it
> >>>> should be safe to allow back to back reads to occur without issuing a
> >>>> wait (or flush in the non-semaphore case).
> >>>>
> >>>> This has the unfortunate side effect that we need to keep track of all
> >>>> the outstanding buffer reads so that we can synchronize on a write, to
> >>>> another ring (since we don't know which read finishes first). In other
> >>>> words, the code is quite simple for two rings, but gets more tricky for
> >>>>> 2 rings.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is a picture of the solution to the above problem
> >>>>
> >>>> Ring 0            Ring 1             Ring 2
> >>>> batch 0           batch 1            batch 2
> >>>>   read buffer A     read buffer A      wait batch 0
> >>>>                                        wait batch 1
> >>>>                                        write buffer A
> >>>>
> >>>> This code is really untested. I'm hoping for some feedback if this is
> >>>> worth cleaning up, and testing more thoroughly.
> >>>
> >>> You say it's an optimization -- do you have performance numbers?
> >>
> >> 33% improvement on a hacked version of gem_ring_sync_loop with.
> >>
> >> It's not really a valid test as it's not coherent, but this is
> >> approximately the best case improvement.
> >>
> >> Oddly semaphores doesn't make much difference in this test, which
> >> was surprising.
> > 
> > Our domain tracking is already complicated in unfunny ways. And (at least
> > without a use-case showing gains with hard numbers in either perf or power
> > usage) I think this patch is the kind of "this looks cool" stuff that
> > added a lot to the current problem.
> > 
> > So before adding more complexity on top I'd like to remove some of the
> > superflous stuff we already have. I.e. all the flushing_list stuff and
> > maybe other things ...
> 
> Can you be more clear on what exactly you want done before taking a
> patch like this? Maybe I can work on it during some down time.

If it claims to be an optimization, at a minimum the patch should
include performance numbers.
-------------- 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/20120116/27d5fee7/attachment.sig>