Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755309AbXH2E3d (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:29:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750781AbXH2E3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:29:23 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:45231 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbXH2E3X (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:29:23 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,319,1183359600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="285104946" Subject: Re: CFS review From: Keith Packard Reply-To: keith.packard@intel.com To: Ingo Molnar Cc: keith.packard@intel.com, Al Boldi , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070829041827.GA8733@elte.hu> References: <200708111344.42934.a1426z@gawab.com> <200708271746.47685.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070827204116.GA12495@elte.hu> <200708280737.53439.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070829041827.GA8733@elte.hu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QH4G6oHZ8stTtrvK+M1G" Organization: Intel Corp Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:29:09 -0700 Message-Id: <1188361749.21502.123.camel@koto.keithp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1810 Lines: 52 --=-QH4G6oHZ8stTtrvK+M1G Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > > ~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)=20 > and i'm wondering how it can be smooth on vesa-driver at all. I tested=20 > it on a Core2Duo box and software rendering manages to do about 3 frames=20 > per second. (although glxgears itself thinks it does ~600 fps) If i=20 > start 3 glxgears then they do ~1 frame per second each. This is on=20 > Fedora 7 with xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.3.0.0-9.fc7 and=20 > 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? --=20 keith.packard@intel.com --=-QH4G6oHZ8stTtrvK+M1G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBG1PYTQp8BWwlsTdMRAtN9AKCNgROm4duzQSCbv0MUQeeYT3Gd1ACgv/R1 s2wMj2xYKr4VJ+GnpaEnX/U= =8iQc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QH4G6oHZ8stTtrvK+M1G-- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/