On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:59:16 +0100 Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.com> wrote:
> On Monday 10 May 2010, Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.com> wrote: > > On Friday 7 May 2010, Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.com> wrote: > > > I've attached my test program (it's based on our C++ OpenGL compositor, > > > but cut down to just test OpenGL pageflipping) as performance.c, and my > > > test X stack's Xorg.0.log after one run of "performance -indirect" > > > (which ran for 573 frames). I'm using a 32-bit PAE kernel - I can add > > > information as required, and I'm happy to run tests or experiments for > > > people. > > > > > > 2) How should I go about fixing compositing? Should I fix indirect > > > rendering to use pageflipping (and if so, where do I start looking for > > > the code that's getting it wrong), or should I make TFP work when direct > > > rendering (and again, where should I start looking)? > > > > Is this the expected behaviour when indirect rendering? If so, I'll dive > > back into the stack and see if I can work out why TFP and direct rendering > > don't interact nicely. If not, roughly where should I look to fix it? > > I've found why direct rendering and TFP don't interact nicely, and it's a > client side error. > > Briefly, my compositor was being started as our signage user, who does not > have > access to /dev/dri/card0, so was falling back to swrast. When you're using > swrast, TFP only appears to work for pixmaps you create, not for compositing > pixmaps. > > Sorry for the noise, What about the indirect bug? Did that also go away when you fixed the perms issue? If not, that sounds like a serious issue, in indirect mode the swap interval should still be honored I think... -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx