On 2017年05月14日 05:31, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
On 17/04/17 07:58 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
On 04/04/17 05:11 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
On 30/03/17 07:03 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 25/03/17 01:33 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
Hi,
I'm sharing this idea here, because it's something that has been
decreasing our performance a lot recently, for example:
http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1703011-RI-RADEONDIR06/7b7668cfc109d1c3dc27e871c8aea71ca13f23fa
The attached proof-of-concept patch (on top of Christian's "CPU mapping
of split VRAM buffers" series, ported from radeon) results in 145.05 fps
on my Tonga.
I get the same result without my or Christian's patches though, with
4.11 based DRM or amd-staging-4.9. So I guess I just can't reproduce the
problem with this test. Are there any other tests for it?
It's random. Sometimes the benchmark runs OK, other times it's slow.
You can easily see the difference but observing how smooth it is. The
visible VRAM evictions result in constant 100-200ms stalls but not
every frame, which feels like the frame rate is much lower than it
actually is.
Make sure your graphics details are maxed out. The best score I can
get with my rig is 70 fps. (Fiji & Core i5 3570)
I'm getting around 53-54 fps at Ultra with Tonga, both with Mesa 13.0.6
and Git.
Have you tried if Christian's patches for CPU access to split VRAM
buffers help? I can imagine that forcing contiguous VRAM buffers for CPU
access could cause lots of other BOs to be unnecessarily evicted from
VRAM, if at least one of their fragments happens to be in the CPU
visible part of VRAM.
I've finally tested latest amd-staging-4.9 and I'm very pleased. For
the first time, the Deus Ex benchmark has almost no hiccups. I've
never seen it so smooth. At one point, the MB/s BO move rate increase
to 200MB/s, stayed there for a couple of seconds, and then it dropped
to 0 again. The frame rate was OK-ish, so I guess the moves didn't
happen all at once. I also tested DiRT Rally and I haven't been able
to reproduce the low FPS with the consistently-high BO move rate that
I saw several months ago.
We could do some move throttling there for sure, but it's much better
than it ever was.
That's great to hear. If you get a chance, it would be interesting if
the attached updated patch improves things even more for you. (The patch
I attached previously couldn't work as intended, this one at least might :)
Frogging101 on IRC noticed that we get a ton of TTM BO moves due to
visible VRAM thrashing and Michel's patch doesn't help. His kernel is
up to date with amd-staging. It looks like the only option left is my
original plan: BO move throttling for visible VRAM by redirecting
mapped buffers to GTT and not allowing them to go back to VRAM if some
counter is too high.
I agree on this opinion, from our performance tuning experiment, this
case indeed often happen especially under vram memory pressure.
redirecting to GTT is better than heavy eviction between VRAM and GTT.
But we should get a condition for redirecting (eviction counter?),
otherwise, BO have no change back to prefer domain.
Regards,
David Zhou
Opinions?
Marek
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
