2011/2/11 Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net>: > On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:44 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >> 2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net>: >> > On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >> >> - It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side. >> >> - The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement. >> >> - This should ensure low latency at low throughput. >> >> - Performance loss seems about 5% instead of the previous 33%. >> > >> > As you've lowered the performance loss number again, I assume you mean >> > 'high throughput' above. :) >> >> I really mean low latency at low throughput (typing for example), [...] > > That was always covered by the BlockHandler. Your problem was only due > to the BlockHandler not getting called for a long time (and/or the > driver not flushing properly in its own BlockHandler).
Even before i read this i got the idea if i shouldn't triple check if I'm trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist anymore. So i'll do some more testing. Maybe a revert is even in order. I made a mistake once, i don't want to make a second one on top of that :) > > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com > Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer > -- Far away from the primal instinct, the song seems to fade away, the river get wider between your thoughts and the things we do and say. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
