Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: RV350, compositing and horrible performance.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    Well I also noticed that AGP mode was forced to 1. (Yes, AGP remember? ) This bug report mentions it and fixes it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ux/+bug/544988
    Someone probably added a quirk to force their system to AGP 1x for stability that also applies to your system. I wouldn't worry too much about it. I double you notice any difference in performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    Before the AGP change, this is what i found in xorg.log
    [ 11.498] (II) RADEON(0): mem size init: gart size :fdff000 vram size: s:4000000 visible:3a1c000
    does look like 64 MiB for vram?
    Yes, 64MB. Note that the number printed here is not total vram, but the maximum amount that the CPU can map. In your case, they are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    [ 11.499] (II) RADEON(0): [DRI2] DRI driver: r300
    [ 11.499] (II) RADEON(0): [DRI2] VDPAU driver: r300
    why not r300g? or this just a nameing thing
    r300g is just want we call the r300 gallium driver. The actual lib is r300_dri.so. It's the same name whether you are using the r300 gallium driver or the old r300 classic mesa driver.

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    [ 11.499] (II) RADEON(0): Front buffer size: 5808K
    [ 11.499] (II) RADEON(0): VRAM usage limit set to 48297K

    and later:
    [ 42.599] (II) RADEON(0): VRAM usage limit set to 50760K


    After reboot btw, those limits remain. So why a limit lower then available VRAM?
    The the remaining amount of CPU mappable vram remaining after the initial ddx allocations (front buffer, cursors, etc.)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    415

    Default

    I did figure as much, but just wanted to double check.

    AGPmode=4 does FEEL faster Won't AGPmode affect memory bandwith from/to the card? E.g. when swapping via gart?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliver View Post
    I did figure as much, but just wanted to double check.

    AGPmode=4 does FEEL faster Won't AGPmode affect memory bandwith from/to the card? E.g. when swapping via gart?
    In theory yes, in practice it doesn't really make a lot of difference.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I remember when the first PCIe cards were released just about every review I read said the bandwidth was orders of magnitude overkill. That much bandwidth simply could not be utilized.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    Well, ideally, you want to minimize the amount of traffic going across the bus. If you have to migrate a lot of data back and forth, you've already lost.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I remember when the first PCIe cards were released just about every review I read said the bandwidth was orders of magnitude overkill. That much bandwidth simply could not be utilized.
    It depends on the card - newer ones will show improvements even going from PCIe2 to PCIe3, at least in certain tests. At the time, I don't think anything was maxing out AGP8x, but manufacturers knew that those cards were coming.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    It likely uses some cpu fallback. How to check that, I have no idea



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    What is your question? vram has much better bandwidth compared to system memory from the GPU's perspective so in most cases it's preferred to store buffers in vram. If we don't have enough vram to cover all the requirements, we may end up with thrashing. There's probably room for improvement with respect to the heuristics used to decide which pools we allocate from and whether we migrate or not. A ttm de-fragmenter would probably also be helpful. Either of these are good projects that don't require low level GPU specific knowledge and could provide nice performance improvements.
    I seem to have the same issue on my RV620 not with the desktop but with games that dont seem to be all that graphically intense.
    Are you able to gives some more details on where exactly one would look to start inplementing a ttm de-fragmenter? I'm not sure if I'm up to the task but it does sound interesting and I would be keen to at least have a look around.

    Thanks for your time.
    Last edited by timothyja; 05-09-2013 at 03:48 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray7brian2 View Post
    It likely uses some cpu fallback. How to check that, I have no idea
    Gallium doesn't support software fallbacks. The driver may still be doing something inefficiently however.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timothyja View Post
    I seem to have the same issue on my RV620 not with the desktop but with games that dont seem to be all that graphically intense.
    Are you able to gives some more details on where exactly one would look to start inplementing a ttm de-fragmenter? I'm not sure if I'm up to the task but it does sound interesting and I would be keen to at least have a look around.

    Thanks for your time.
    First try a newer kernel and version of mesa. There have been a lot of performance improvements in 9.1 for example. Also try adjusting the CPU governor as per other comments in this thread. For the ttm defragmentor, see drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ in the kernel source.
    Last edited by agd5f; 05-09-2013 at 09:36 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •