On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:59:55 -0700, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:31:52 +0100, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Replace the three nearly identical copies of the code with a single > > function. And take advantage of the opportunity to do some > > micro-optimisation: avoid the vmalloc if at all possible and also avoid > > dropping the lock unless we are forced to acquire the mm semaphore. > > Could we get some performance numbers in patches that add code for > performance?
For myself, this was justified by simply refactoring the common code. However, x11perf -aa10text on pnv: before: 1.28 Mglyph/sec after: 1.45 Mglyph/sec I have my SNB box doing a more thorough analysis of the difference for various pwrite sizes (assuming that the likelihood of faulting is not totally workload dependent.) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
