Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R6xx/R7XX kernel 2.6.33 module performance hacks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by tettamanti View Post
    I'm not conviced it's the and; ignore it for a moment: with consecutive OUT_RINGs the CPU still needs to compute the next index into the ring before actually writing into it, so it's possible that a mov into the ring is stalled by the inc of the index.
    In a 2 issue superscalar cpu a mov followed by an index inc can be executed in one cycle. Another move followed by another index inc can be executed on the very next cycle. In this case no stall occurs however the inc takes up one of the available execution pipes. The result is one move per cpu cycle.
    With open-coded offsets instead the index is known at compile time and the compiler emits the movs back to back.
    In this case both pipes are filled with move instructions each cpu cycle. The result is 2 moves per cpu cycle.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
      I didn't check with that one. I will try it.

      I did have someone test it with ut2004 with great results
      That someone would be me

      x11perf gives me some improvemenet

      before

      Code:
      4800000 reps @   0.0012 msec (855000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      4800000 reps @   0.0012 msec (848000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      after
      Code:
      4800000 reps @   0.0011 msec (883000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      4800000 reps @   0.0012 msec (866000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      4800000 reps @   0.0011 msec (942000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      4800000 reps @   0.0011 msec (906000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      4800000 reps @   0.0012 msec (844000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa line (Charter 10)
      glxgears is the same fps, but a lot smoother, w/o these 21 patches the gears would pause for a split ms.

      The most noticeable difference (for me) is in ut2004, where unplayble maps (13~17, it's now like 19~22) are unbearable And where playable maps have better fps and most important (like glxgears) not more pauses/shutter. I guess these patches improved the minimum frame rate and eliminated pauses.

      My system is an amd x2 3800 with 3850 AGP (8x) with resolution of 1600x1050.

      BTW, patches applied cleanly on 2.6.32 radeon-testing and played ut2004 about an hour, haven't had crashes nor redering bugs (AFAICS). And suspended to RAM and resumed correctly this morning.
      Last edited by xming; 01-09-2010, 03:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
        here are some kernel 2.6.33 module performance patches for r6xx/7xx chipsets that I wrote.

        http://pastebin.ca/1743103
        http://pastebin.ca/1743100

        It made Torcs playable on my laptop.

        The benchmark x11perf -aa10text shows more than 5% improvement on my lap top

        Please give me a before and after benchmark with the command x11perf -aa10text if you could.
        Is this under KMS? or non-KMS? the non-KMS x11perf path is really kernel heavy since we flush after every operation, under KMS with latest -ati its a lot different profile, since it batches operations.

        Dave.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by airlied View Post
          Is this under KMS? or non-KMS? the non-KMS x11perf path is really kernel heavy since we flush after every operation, under KMS with latest -ati its a lot different profile, since it batches operations.

          Dave.
          Mine results are both under KMS.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by airlied View Post
            Is this under KMS? or non-KMS? the non-KMS x11perf path is really kernel heavy since we flush after every operation, under KMS with latest -ati its a lot different profile, since it batches operations.

            Dave.
            My results are non kms. So I guess with xmings tests its a win either way

            Comment


            • #16
              It won't make a difference for KMS as Obscene_CNN's patches only affect the non-KMS paths.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Obscene_CNN View Post
                My results are non kms. So I guess with xmings tests its a win either way
                non-kms is overusing those functions, we hit the ring for every single drawing operation under X, would be better trying to fix the DDX to batch like we do for KMS. I just don't care enough for non-kms to do it. You'll probably get a 30% or so increase and then these hacks will be a lot less useful.

                Dave.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                  It won't make a difference for KMS as Obscene_CNN's patches only affect the non-KMS paths.

                  so I must be imagining things

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by xming View Post
                    so I must be imagining things
                    You probably experienced something that's similar to the placebo effect

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by monraaf View Post
                      You probably experienced something that's similar to the placebo effect
                      Yes both me and my computer x11perf *is* giving better results

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X