[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] loader/dri3: Overhaul dri3_update_num_back
Michel Dänzer
michel at daenzer.net
Thu Sep 1 06:39:32 UTC 2016
On 01/09/16 02:05 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net
> <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>> wrote:
>
> On 31/08/16 11:21 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 2016 12:07 AM, "Michel Dänzer" <michel at daenzer.net <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>
> > <mailto:michel at daenzer.net <mailto:michel at daenzer.net>>> wrote:
> >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com <mailto:michel.daenzer at amd.com>
> > <mailto:michel.daenzer at amd.com <mailto:michel.daenzer at amd.com>>>
> >>
> >> Always use 3 buffers when flipping. With only 2 buffers, we have to wait
> >> for a flip to complete (which takes non-0 time even with asynchronous
> >> flips) before we can start working on the next frame. We were previously
> >> only using 2 buffers for flipping if the X server supports asynchronous
> >> flips, even when we're not using asynchronous flips. This could result
> >> in bad performance (the referenced bug report is an extreme case, where
> >> the inter-frame stalls were preventing the GPU from reaching its maximum
> >> clocks).
> >
> > Sorry for the post-push review but I don't usually pay much attention to
> > the window system code. In any case, I believe you're doing your
> > counting wrong. When flipping with swapinterval=0, you need 4 buffers:
> >
> > 1. The buffer currently being scanned out (will be released at next vblank)
> > 2. The buffer X has queued for scanout but is waiting on vblank
>
> s/vblank/flip/g, since async flips may not wait for vblank, but yeah.
>
> > 3. The buffer the application has just submitted which X will queue next
> > of it doesn't get another before the window closes.
> > 4. The buffer the application is using for rendering.
> >
> > With only 3, you get a stall during that window in which X has queued
> > another flip but we're waiting on vblank before the flip begins. An I
> > missing something?
>
> Nothing, except maybe the paragraph below stating that I couldn't
> measure any benefit from using 4 buffers. :) I'm not exactly sure why,
> but I suspect it might be because even with just 3 buffers, the GPU can
> always work on at least one frame ahead of time.
>
> Also note that even before my change, we were only using 3 buffers when
> the X driver supports async flips (with swap interval 0; only 2 buffers
> with swap interval > 0).
>
>
> Yes, because with async flips you don't have a buffer sitting queued in
> the kernel waiting to be flipped which you can't cancel.
Actually, there is. Even async flips take non-0 time to complete.
> that makes perfect sense.
What exactly does? My change may not be perfect, but the logic before it
was mostly backwards.
> That said, I'd be interested in hearing about any test cases where 4
> buffers provide a significant boost over 3.
>
>
> A little history that may be useful: Quadbuffering was originally added
> for DRI3+present here:
>
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/?id=f7a355556ef5fe23056299a77414f9ad8b5e5a1d
So the commit message claims. If you look at the code after that change
though, it's basically impossible to end up with 4 buffers (at least
permanently), since it would require all these conditions to be true at
the same:
1. priv->flipping (the last Present request was completed as a flip)
2. !(priv->present_capabilities & XCB_PRESENT_CAPABILITY_ASYNC) (the X
driver doesn't support async flips)
3. priv->swap_interval == 0
Given 2, 1 & 3 are mutually exclusive.
> Unfortunately, neither of those specify precise metrics. Eero's bug had
> some very concrete numbers. Hopefully he can provide you with the
> details you need for further analysis.
Indeed. FWIW, my feeling is that my change most likely just exposed
issues elsewhere.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list