Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Likely Radeon Gallium3D Regression On Linux 3.14 + Mesa 10.2

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by Luke View Post
    I was able to roll back the regressions by rolling back Xorg and Mesa. Xorg was the worst offender, in Mesa only the hyper-Z issue caused a slowdown but Scorched3d locks up on the HD6750 if you use hyper-Z with Mesa 10.2. Works fine with Mesa 10.1, and both work fine with hyper-Z on the Radeon HD5570.

    I first installed the 3.14 kernels after this point, at first could not use them because of a GPU power management firmware bug. Last week a new Lnux-firmware package fixed that, and I found no performance regressions between the 3.13 and 3.14 kernels on my systems with the use cases I have. All the problems were in Mesa and X.
    Yes? I thought the problem was in the kernel...

    Comment


    • #52
      Not what I have seen

      Originally posted by asdfblah View Post
      Yes? I thought the problem was in the kernel...
      I've heard reports of a regressio there but never seen it. The X regression is so bad I had to pin Xorg in the machine I use for games

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Luke View Post
        I've heard reports of a regressio there but never seen it. The X regression is so bad I had to pin Xorg in the machine I use for games
        Well, it was this thread: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...untu-14-04-LTS
        I don't get it, does it affect ATI/AMD every card, or just cards < r600 ?

        Comment


        • #54
          I have an HD6750 and and HD5570 that have been tested

          Originally posted by asdfblah View Post
          Well, it was this thread: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...untu-14-04-LTS
          I don't get it, does it affect ATI/AMD every card, or just cards < r600 ?
          In my tests, no regression from the kernel update to 3.14, only the hyper-Z regression on the Mesa 10.1 to Mesa 10.2 transition, and the newest versions of Mesa 10.2 will tolerate enabling hyper-Z in ~/.profile on both the cards I have tested. The X regression is the worst of all, still present as of last week. When I get a version of X on the second machine (with the HD5570) that restores full performance, I will know that one has been found and fixed. Until then X is pinned on my best machine.

          The only games I have that impose a significant OpenGL load are Scorched3d, Critter (load due to high framerate) and 0ad(mostly CPU limited except at the very start). I don't have the games usually benchmarked, so a kernel regression not affecting these games could be present and I would not see it

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by Luke View Post
            The X regression is the worst of all, still present as of last week. When I get a version of X on the second machine (with the HD5570) that restores full performance, I will know that one has been found and fixed. Until then X is pinned on my best machine.
            Can you bisect the xserver and identify what commit caused the regression?

            Comment


            • #56
              Not likely

              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
              Can you bisect the xserver and identify what commit caused the regression?
              I've never done something like that-and I have throttled cellular bandwidth only, no land line connection

              Comment


              • #57
                xorg is a poor graphic server. how long for wayland!? regressiona are unnerving.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by Luke View Post
                  I've never done something like that-and I have throttled cellular bandwidth only, no land line connection
                  Once you have a git checkout doing the bisect doesn't require a internet connection. If you don't use X from git but only releases than you'd better find a wifi hotspot for the initial checkout. As for how to do the bisect itself here is a tutorial . It's for the kernel, not X, but the commands would be the same.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    I've never built X from source at all

                    Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                    Once you have a git checkout doing the bisect doesn't require a internet connection. If you don't use X from git but only releases than you'd better find a wifi hotspot for the initial checkout. As for how to do the bisect itself here is a tutorial . It's for the kernel, not X, but the commands would be the same.
                    I have never built X or Mesa from source, I run them from PPA's. I've never done anything with GIT other than download small source programs, never done a bisect of anything. If the only way this gets fixed is for me to learn to do a git bisect, dedicate a partitiion to building X and installing all the build dependencies and all the rest, it won't happen. I've never done this, wonder if I should simply stop posting my reports of regressions here, as I am not getting repeated requests for things beyond my ability.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      I've filed a bug report with Ubuntu/Launchpad against their version

                      Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                      Once you have a git checkout doing the bisect doesn't require a internet connection. If you don't use X from git but only releases than you'd better find a wifi hotspot for the initial checkout. As for how to do the bisect itself here is a tutorial . It's for the kernel, not X, but the commands would be the same.
                      I filed this bug report:

                      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...r/+bug/1293314

                      For my own purposes it is enough to run the xserver used by Ubuntu 13.10 with current Mesa from the Oibaf PPA and the current kernel from PPA. For Canonical, however, they need to either get this fixed upstream, patch it themselves, or do as I am doing and reuse the older X server. Otherwise an LTS version of Ubuntu (14.04) will appear where proprietary drivers give no more performance than Mesa did a year ago, and Mesa performance is half what is used to be. Debian will get this too-as will any Steamboxes built on that version. I can't imagine they will be dumb enough to let this happen now that they have been made aware that the regression exists. Possible they might miss it here on Phoronix.

                      This is a guess, but since the first version of X exhibiting the terrible performance was the first version to use DRI3, that might be related to the problem. On the other hand, going to a non-compositing window manager did not help at all, don't know if that has any bearing on it.
                      Last edited by Luke; 03-17-2014, 03:03 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X