We're going to do this in Mesa instead: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/22771
Marek On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 6:36 PM Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 16:14 Joshua Ashton <jos...@froggi.es> wrote: > >> I mean I would also like power and perf numbers for Vangogh given you >> referenced 10.3. >> >> Generic "power consumption is better" isn't enough to convince me that >> this is the right call. >> > > Raphael and Mendocino have worse power consumption with retiled > displayable DCC and modifiers, and that can also be due to how retiling is > implemented for modifiers. > > Marek > > >> - Joshie 🐸✨ >> >> On Friday, 28 April 2023, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I thought the same thing initially, but then realized that's not how >> modifiers were designed to work. >> > Mesa should expose all modifiers it wants to allow for 3D and it >> doesn't care which ones are displayable. >> > The kernel should expose all modifiers it wants to allow for display. >> > With that, Mesa can still use theoretically displayable DCC, but it >> will only be used for anything that's not the display. >> > We can, of course, disable it in Mesa instead to get the same effect. >> > We would need perf numbers for dGPUs to be able to tell whether it's >> beneficial with the cost of DCC retiling. >> > Marek >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 12:11 Joshua Ashton <jos...@froggi.es> wrote: >> >> >> >> I really don't think the kernel isn't the right place to do this. >> >> Is there any reason to not just disable it from the Mesa side? >> >> >> >> We can already disable displayable DCC there, so I don't see why you >> are even touching the kernel. >> >> It makes it infinitely harder for anyone to evaluate perf and power >> tradeoffs if you disable it at this level. >> >> >> >> The whole power vs perf trade is also not a big deal on dGPUs compared >> to APUs. Probably needs a better heuristic either way to avoid regressing >> perf. >> >> >> >> - Joshie 🐸✨ >> >> >> >> On 28 April 2023 10:47:17 BST, "Marek Olšák" <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> It's attached for review. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Marek >> > > >