Re: Xorg Glamo
uzi18 at o2.pl
Thu Nov 19 14:26:27 CET 2009
Dnia 19 listopada 2009 13:38 Thomas White <taw at bitwiz.org.uk> napisał(a):
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:09:32 +0100
> David Garabana Barro <david at garabana.com> wrote:
> > I know the bandwith handicap, and I know it's not possible to improve
> > that, but having free CPU time while Glamo is drawing should allow to
> > calculate things (as next frames) instead of waiting glamo to finish.
> > Shouldn't it?
> That's right. All I was saying is that the improvement only applies
> for accelerated operations, and that (at the moment) we don't ask it to
> do very many of those. At least, not operations that are large enough
> to be worth accelerating.
> > Should FIFO patch have some impact on "normal" (Xorg) use?
> A limited impact (because of the above), but so far (for me) it
> certainly doesn't seem to hurt. The situation is slightly odd: the
> FIFO patch makes the waitqueue patch have less impact (because it's
> less useful to be able to wait when the accelerated operations are much
> faster), and the waitqueue patch also makes the FIFO patch have less
> impact (because we don't mind waiting as long if we can do it without
> blocking). But on the other hand, there's only one Xorg process doing
> all the requests.
Nice work Thomas - just add to rss Your blog :)
Could You add comments there?
Thx in advice
More information about the community