On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:34 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > > > The current {Prepare,Finish}Access isn't completely
> > > > > > suited for this conversion (exaPixmapIsOffscreen() isn't exported).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, exporting exaPixmapIsOffscreen() might make sense anyway though.
> > >
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 09:59 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 13:54 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:08 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 13:54 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 17:07 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Michel Dänzer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Migratin
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 13:54 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Migrating out for a write-onl
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 08:02 -0700, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Migrating out for a write-only operation is just broken, and is the
> > > thing that should be
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Michel Dänzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Migrating out for a write-only operation is just broken, and is the
>> > thing
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 21:59 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Migrating out for a write-only operation is just broken, and is the
> > thing that should be fixed there.
There is no actual migration here, just superfluous
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:49 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Clemens Eisserer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I've a use-case where the client uploads 32x32 A8 images to an
>
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:49 +0200, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Clemens Eisserer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've a use-case where the client uploads 32x32 A8 images to an
> > 256x256x8 pixmap which is later used as mask in a composition
> > operatio
Hi Michel,
Thanks a lot for your investigation.
> Does the attached xserver patch help? Looks like we're syncing
> unnecessarily in the migration no-op case.
Yes, a lot. My benchmark went up from ~12fps to ~19fps and the
"fallback" is gone according to the profile.
I am still only at 50% of intel
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:02 +0200, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>
> I've a use-case where the client uploads 32x32 A8 images to an
> 256x256x8 pixmap which is later used as mask in a composition
> operation.
> The test-case is able to render with 40fps on xserver-1.3/intel-2.1.1
> however with the lat
Sorry for the email flood ...
> 2.1.1 probably used XAA as default, which didn't try to accelerate much.
No, the results were with EXA enabled - although results with XAA are
again magnitudes better ;)
Thanks, Clemens
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.fr
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Clemens Eisserer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> There is ofcource a fallback system, which is pretty much a memcpy.
> Ah, I guess that was that memcpy I always saw in moveIn / moveOut ;)
>
>> intel has never had an UploadToScreen hook.
> Ah interesting, becau
Hi,
> There is ofcource a fallback system, which is pretty much a memcpy.
Ah, I guess that was that memcpy I always saw in moveIn / moveOut ;)
> intel has never had an UploadToScreen hook.
Ah interesting, because I saw 4x better performance with intel-2.1.1 /
xserver-1.3.
With this configuration
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Clemens Eisserer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I think this is because intel does not provide an UploadToScreen hook
>> (because it has no vram). It hasn't made (visible) effort to
>> reintegrate UXA in EXA,
> Btw. I was using EXA without GEM.
> Has the Uplo
Hi,
> I think this is because intel does not provide an UploadToScreen hook
> (because it has no vram). It hasn't made (visible) effort to
> reintegrate UXA in EXA,
Btw. I was using EXA without GEM.
Has the UploadToScreen hook been removed when preparing the driver for
UXA and/or GEM?
One thing wh
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Clemens Eisserer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've a use-case where the client uploads 32x32 A8 images to an
> 256x256x8 pixmap which is later used as mask in a composition
> operation.
> The test-case is able to render with 40fps on xserver-1.3/intel-2.
Hello,
I've a use-case where the client uploads 32x32 A8 images to an
256x256x8 pixmap which is later used as mask in a composition
operation.
The test-case is able to render with 40fps on xserver-1.3/intel-2.1.1
however with the latest GIT of both I only get ~10-15fps.
Unfourtunatly I've not bee
19 matches
Mail list logo
