On 03.08.2016 09:40, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Keith Packard <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> From: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> This change has two effects:
>>>
>>> 1. Only calls FlushCallbacks when we're actually flushing data to a
>>>    client. The unnecessary FlushCallback calls could cause significant
>>>    performance degradation with compositing, which is significantly
>>>    reduced even without any driver changes.
>>
>> Seems like a completely reasonable plan. As you can see, the original
>> goal was to have the callback called only once when flushing output to
>> multiple clients though. That appears to only be used by the record
>> extension, so perhaps we just don't care.

I suspect that the record extension could also take advantage of this
change, but I'm not sure and can't say that I care too much. :)


>>> 2. By passing the ClientPtr to FlushCallbacks, drivers can completely
>>>    eliminate unnecessary flushing of GPU commands by keeping track of
>>>    whether we're flushing any XDamageNotify events to the client for
>>>    which the corresponding rendering commands haven't been flushed to
>>>    the GPU yet.
>>
>> Is this something we should be doing in either glamor or DIX itself? It
>> looks like the ATI driver has a number that is incremented every time
>> commands are sent to the GPU and that clients need to be flushed
>> whenever they haven't been flushed since the last time that number was
>> changed?
>>
>> I don't even know how this works in the generic modesetting driver at
>> this point; what makes sure that glFlush is called before data are sent
>> to the client?
> 
> We glFlush in the BlockHandler in glamor.

That's not sufficient for correctness with direct rendering compositors,
because FlushClient can be called before BlockHandler.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to