On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Hmm. I don't suppose the R128DMA() call per se imposes such a high load? > > No, I also tested it inside R128RMA (for the cases DMA is working) and inside > > the "if" cycle for cases it isn't. It is not (directly) R128DMA that is > > causing this, or memcpy, but as these functions take a lot of time to complete > > (about 10ms for DVD-sized picture), I guess it is something that > > asynchronously does a busy loop waiting for R128PutImage to complete. But why > > a wisely placed usleep seems to (mostly) cure the symptoms remains a mystery > > to me. > Indeed, especially considering that X is single-threaded... Exactly.
> Would that usleep be an acceptable kludge until the real cause is found > and fixed? Yes, it is mostly ok. It definitely worsens the latency (judder), but this has been already noticeable before to some extent, I think it's bearable. > > > Can you verify by changing the #ifdef XF86DRI inside the function to > > > #if 0? > > Especially for you I did as requested, > So I've been complaining about this all the time? ;) Perhaps I should have written it more precisely, "I did EXACTLY as you requested". Because I already did similar stuff before, but as you always seem to be complaining about what I do, now I did exactly as you said :-) Mit freundlichen Grüßen Peter Surda (Shurdeek) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ICQ 10236103, +436505122023 -- Hello, this is Bill Gates and I pronounce Monopoly, er, Windows as Windows.
msg03043/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
