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 <ch...@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.argenzi...@intel.com>
As it happens... Thanks, -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
