3DMark I doubt, there is a 'driver overhead' sub-test under GFXBench which may show the difference here. Overall, I never saw these benchmarks spending higher CPU % in libpthread (mutexes), so I'm skeptical, it will affect anything in fps / total scores by large.
Thank you for pointing this out anyways, I should still try this. -Yogesh. >-----Original Message----- >From: Palli, Tapani >Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:37 PM >To: Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com>; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >Cc: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] Testing out Kristian's fast mtx patch > >It's possible that this series could help with CPU intensive 3DMark ... >FYI Yogesh. > > >On 10/10/2017 05:45 AM, Timothy Arceri wrote: >> After a recent discussion about this code from 2015 I was curious to >> give it a try. The outstanding review item was that we shouldn't be >> replacing the C11 mtx type/functions with our own, so I've renamed the >> fast path to simple_mtx* and added a couple of patches to make use of >> it. >> >> The idea is this fast mtx can be used in place of the full mtx >> implementation when its of type mtx_plain. >> >> I though if anywhere we might see a change in the drawoverhead piglit >> test but I didn't see any real change. >> >> Anyway since I've made the updates I thought I'd send it out. Maybe >> someone else might find some better results. Kristian reported a 10% >> increase in some internal Intel benchmarks, I wonder if thats still >> the case. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mesa-dev mailing list >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
