Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-09-27 11:02:08)
> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 10:41 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-09-27 09:52:42)
> > > On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 21:26 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > +static void *sys_thp_alloc(void *arg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sys_wait *w = arg;
> > > > + struct timespec now;
> > > > +
> > > > + clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &now);
> > > > + while (!done) {
> > > > + const size_t sz = 2 << 20;
> > > > + const struct timespec start = now;
> > > > + void *ptr;
> > > > +
> > > > + ptr = mmap(NULL, sz,
> > > > + PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS,
> > > > + -1, 0);
> > > > + assert(ptr != MAP_FAILED);
> > > > + madvise(ptr, sz, MADV_HUGEPAGE);
> > > > + for (int page = 0; page < 2 << 20 >> 12; page++)
> > > > + *((volatile uint32_t *)ptr + (page << 12 >> 2)) =
> > > > 0;
> > >
> > > But what's the point in this iteration, we iterate from 0 to 512 page
> > > index (sz/PAGE_SIZE would be so much easier) and then write to to not
> > > each page but interleave four page writes per page and 3/4 of pages
> > > never get written? If this is intentional, please drop a comment.
> >
> > - for (int page = 0; page < 2 << 20 >> 12; page++)
> > - *((volatile uint32_t *)ptr + (page << 12 >> 2)) = 0;
>
> Yes, why not write /sizeof() like civilized people do :P
>
> > + for (size_t page = 0; page < sz; page += PAGE_SIZE)
> > + *(volatile uint32_t *)(ptr + page) = 0;
>
> Thats much more clear.
>
> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
>
> It seems program usage info is not a hot feature for benchmarks.
Indeed. The intention is that you never run these directly but through
an ezbench wrapper. Paging Martin.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
