Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: > On 2018-06-15 05:25 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >> On June 15, 2018 01:14:24 Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >>> On 2018-06-15 07:31 AM, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >>>> >>>> I did some testing and x11perf -copywinwin500 is... exactly the same >>>> with >>>> or without my patches. If anything they might improve it by just a >>>> hair. >>> >>> Possible explanations I can think of: >>> >>> 1. Your glamor still has its own FBO cache. Which version of xserver are >>> you testing with? >>> >> 1.19 I think > > Okay, that doesn't have the glamor FBO cache anymore. > > >>> 2. The i965 driver cache isn't hit even before these changes. >> >> It's definitely getting hit in both cases, it just may require a >> slightly larger cache of we aren't recycling BOs until they're idle. > > It might be more than just slightly, -copywinwin500 can queue many > overlapping copies between flushes. Can you compare the maximum total > cache size with and without this series?
I suspect it'll be only about a factor of how-many-batchbuffers-before-throttling difference -- while the batchbuffer still references the BO, the bufmgr wouldn't see the buffer to reuse it anyway. I suspect we hit the aperture limit and flush in the copywinwin500 case.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
