Dave Jones wrote:
Was there any differnces in the devices at 00:00.0 and 00:01.0 ?
(host & pci bridges)
Only the Host bridge line c0:
With AGPGART:
00:00.0 Host bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e1 (rev a1)
Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd.: Unknown device 0300
Dave Jones wrote:
Was there any differnces in the devices at 00:00.0 and 00:01.0 ?
(host pci bridges)
Only the Host bridge line c0:
With AGPGART:
00:00.0 Host bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e1 (rev a1)
Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd.: Unknown device 0300
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:36:13PM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> >hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
> >device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
> >in both cases, maybe the difference between the two
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
in both cases, maybe the difference between the two shows something
useful...
Hmmm...only the latency at the VGA card.
With AGPGART:
> agpgart: 58,1 frames
> nv_agp: 63,1 frames
>
> Its a lot in Doom3.
hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
in both cases, maybe the difference between the two shows something
useful...
-
To
Terence Ripperda wrote:
> I wouldn't expect even falling back to pci dma would have this big of an
> impact on 2d performance, but perhaps there's enough bus activity for
> this to happen. Marcus, can you verify that you're actually using
> agpgart in that situation? do you possibly have our
Terence Ripperda wrote:
I wouldn't expect even falling back to pci dma would have this big of an
impact on 2d performance, but perhaps there's enough bus activity for
this to happen. Marcus, can you verify that you're actually using
agpgart in that situation? do you possibly have our
agpgart: 58,1 frames
nv_agp: 63,1 frames
Its a lot in Doom3.
hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
in both cases, maybe the difference between the two shows something
useful...
-
To
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
in both cases, maybe the difference between the two shows something
useful...
Hmmm...only the latency at the VGA card.
With AGPGART:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 08:36:13PM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
hmm I wonder.. .could you collect lspci -vxxx settings for the AGP
device (lspci -vxxx gives you lots of devices, but only one is relevant)
in both cases, maybe the difference between the two shows
On Friday 11 February 2005 22:19, Terence Ripperda wrote:
> > > I just read through the nVidia readme file, and there is a
> > > comprehensive section on what module to use for what chipset (and
> > > card). It recommends using the nVagp for my setup,
>
> is that the "CONFIGURING AGP"
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:48:21PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:04:06PM +, Nick Warne wrote:
>
> > > > This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp
> driver
> > > > was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
>
Dave Jones wrote:
> *shrug*, if the nvidia module is properly configured, it should make
no difference at all. AGPGART operation isn't a performance critical
thing, as the hardware does 99% of the work.
Yes, that was also my opinion, but after using AGPGART, hmm.
And it was on my last 32 bit FC2
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:04:06PM +, Nick Warne wrote:
> > > This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp driver
> > > was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
> > > your dmesg / X log ?
>
> > With the nVidia own nv_agp it appears
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 05:21:39PM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
> No warnings/errors in both logs. All clean. But switching/maximizing
> between tasks like firefox, thunderbird or a gnome-terminal is so slow,
> that you can see it how firefox/GTK+ theme is writing the GUI and the
> fonts
Dave Jones wrote:
probably you have selected IOMMU, which is dependant on it.
Yes, thanks. Sorry my fault. I had it not deactivated, arggg.
This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp driver
was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
your dmesg / X
Dave Jones wrote:
probably you have selected IOMMU, which is dependant on it.
Yes, thanks. Sorry my fault. I had it not deactivated, arggg.
This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp driver
was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
your dmesg / X
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 05:21:39PM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
No warnings/errors in both logs. All clean. But switching/maximizing
between tasks like firefox, thunderbird or a gnome-terminal is so slow,
that you can see it how firefox/GTK+ theme is writing the GUI and the
fonts slowly
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:04:06PM +, Nick Warne wrote:
This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp driver
was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
your dmesg / X log ?
With the nVidia own nv_agp it appears directly in all
Dave Jones wrote:
*shrug*, if the nvidia module is properly configured, it should make
no difference at all. AGPGART operation isn't a performance critical
thing, as the hardware does 99% of the work.
Yes, that was also my opinion, but after using AGPGART, hmm.
And it was on my last 32 bit FC2
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:48:21PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:04:06PM +, Nick Warne wrote:
This surprises me, especially considering the in-kernel nvidia-agp
driver
was actually written by NVidia. Are there any agp error messages in
your
On Friday 11 February 2005 22:19, Terence Ripperda wrote:
I just read through the nVidia readme file, and there is a
comprehensive section on what module to use for what chipset (and
card). It recommends using the nVagp for my setup,
is that the CONFIGURING AGP appendix? I didn't
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:07:22AM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
> the agpgart backend is now always compiled in and selected with 2.6.11-rc3
> x86_64. I can delete or disable it in the config, it is always back written.
probably you have selected IOMMU, which is dependant on it.
> Is this
Hello,
the agpgart backend is now always compiled in and selected with 2.6.11-rc3
x86_64. I can delete or disable it in the config, it is always back written.
Is this the default future behaviour? The eg Nforce3 AGP is on a normal
desktop so slow on 2D and also in 3D mode a lot slower and all
Hello,
the agpgart backend is now always compiled in and selected with 2.6.11-rc3
x86_64. I can delete or disable it in the config, it is always back written.
Is this the default future behaviour? The eg Nforce3 AGP is on a normal
desktop so slow on 2D and also in 3D mode a lot slower and all
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:07:22AM +0100, Marcus Hartig wrote:
the agpgart backend is now always compiled in and selected with 2.6.11-rc3
x86_64. I can delete or disable it in the config, it is always back written.
probably you have selected IOMMU, which is dependant on it.
Is this the
26 matches
Mail list logo
