[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1188361749.21502.123.camel@koto.keithp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:29:09 -0700
From: Keith Packard <keith.packard@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: keith.packard@...el.com, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFS review
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 06:18 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Then lay them out side by side to see the periodic stallings for
> > ~10sec.
The X scheduling code isn't really designed to handle software GL well;
the requests can be very expensive to execute, and yet are specified as
atomic operations (sigh).
> i just tried something similar (by adding Option "NoDRI" to xorg.conf)
> and i'm wondering how it can be smooth on vesa-driver at all. I tested
> it on a Core2Duo box and software rendering manages to do about 3 frames
> per second. (although glxgears itself thinks it does ~600 fps) If i
> start 3 glxgears then they do ~1 frame per second each. This is on
> Fedora 7 with xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.3.0.0-9.fc7 and
> xorg-x11-drv-i810-2.0.0-4.fc7.
Are you attempting to measure the visible updates by eye? Or are you
using some other metric?
In any case, attempting to measure anything using glxgears is a bad
idea; it's not representative of *any* real applications. And then using
software GL on top of that...
What was the question again?
--
keith.packard@...el.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists