Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > I don't know shadowfb enough to know how it works, but i guess you write > > > to the shadowfb, which in turn get copied to the true screen every now > > > and then. > > > > Yes. The ShadowFB we are talking about does the copy after each operation. > > Keith Packard wrote another shadow framebuffer implementation for Tiny X > > which only does it in regular intervals which should further improve > > performance at the cost of latency, don't know if it will (or even can) be > > integrated into the 'normal' XFree86 server. > > mmm, ... > > don't know if this would really help here, especially if you want to retain > the visual aspect of it.
What do you mean? AFAIK Keith's code refreshes the display 50 times a second, maybe it could even be done during vertical retrace at least on some hardware. > > GNOME draws stippled rectangles, which leads to the whole area of the > > rectangles being copied from the shadow framebuffer to the real one. If it > > drew the rectangles using four lines instead, it should be much faster. > > Or if we have some magic in shadowfb that know whatdid change and what not, > but i think this would be expensive, well not in bus cycle, but in memory > accesses. > > So no real way out of this, maybe we should fill a bug against gnome ? Not a bad idea. AFAIR there was a discussion about this on one of the X mailing lists with a GNOME developer so I assumed it had already been fixed. Michel -- Earthling Michel D�nzer (MrCooper) \ CS student and free software enthusiast Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \ member of XFree86 and the DRI project
