Johannes Truschnigg escreveu:
I really love how Intel and its fine development team supports a free
software
stack even on the desktop side of things, and how these efforts benefit even
users of hardware from different manufacturers. Yet on the other hand, I'd
really appreciate more
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 08:54:28PM -0200, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
(and yes, we definitely need to separate it in a planet.x.org subset)
Didn't cworth already do that? :)
Cheers,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
xorg mailing list
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty
straightforward to backport, but it is my understanding that a 1.6
server will be
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 09:37 -0800, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Michel Dänzer
mic...@tungstengraphics.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:57 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:48:52PM -0500, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
You really need the glyph
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:48:52PM -0500, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty
straightforward to backport, but it is my understanding that a 1.6
server will be uploaded to
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:57 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:48:52PM -0500, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty
straightforward to backport, but it is
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Michel Dänzer
mic...@tungstengraphics.com wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:57 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:48:52PM -0500, Thomas Jaeger wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the
On Monday 15 December 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
I seriously doubt it, since performance was far better last week, last
month, and a year ago with the same hardware. I think we can safely
pin this current problem on the software.
Even if it were limited at 50kglyphs/s, the 7m character
I just upgraded to more recent bits, namely xorg 1.5.3 and intel
driver 2.5.1 on GM965 rev 0c, and linux 2.6.28-rc8, all from Ubuntu 9.04
development packages. I noticed that scrolling text performance in
xterm, gnome-terminal, and xfce4-terminal is incredibly bad. Slideshow
bad. You can see
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
Is your CPU pegged during the slow performance period? If so, you need
to run sysprof to see what the problem is.
Yes, Xorg gets one entire CPU and then some.
(Yes, oprofile generally isn't good enough to get decent
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty
straightforward to backport, but it is my understanding that a 1.6
server will be uploaded to jaunty soon, so you might want to wait for that.
Jeffrey W. Baker
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
Is your CPU pegged during the slow performance period? If so, you need
to run sysprof to see what the problem is.
1.3MB output of sysprof at the following URL:
http://octothorpe.barelyconnected.net/~jwb/sysprof-scrolling.txt
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty
straightforward to backport, but it is my understanding that a 1.6
server will be
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 16:08 -0800, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com wrote:
You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text
performance out of the 2.5
14 matches
Mail list logo
