On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Chad Versace wrote: > > + swap_buffers_cookie = > > + xcb_dri2_swap_buffers_unchecked(c, pdraw->xDrawable, > > + target_msc_hi, target_msc_lo, > > + divisor_hi, divisor_lo, > > + remainder_hi, remainder_lo); > > + /* Immediately wait on the swapbuffers reply. If we didn't, we'd > > have > > + * to do so some time before reusing a (non-pageflipped) backbuffer. > > + * Otherwise, the new rendering could get ahead of the X Server's > > + * dispatch of the swapbuffer and you'd display garbage. > > + * > > + * We use XSync() first to reap the invalidate events through the > > event > > + * filter, to ensure that the next drawing doesn't use an > > invalidated > > + * buffer. > > + */ > > + XSync(pdraw->psc->dpy, False); > > + swap_buffers_reply = > > + xcb_dri2_swap_buffers_reply(c, swap_buffers_cookie, NULL); > > + ret = merge_counter(swap_buffers_reply->swap_hi, > > + swap_buffers_reply->swap_lo); > > + free(swap_buffers_reply); > > Will this sync harm performance for artificial benchmarks? I'm asking because > this hunk reminds me of Oliver's comments that Dante was slower on EGL than > GLX > perhaps due to extra X roundtrips.
When I forced the vblank_mode to 0 on EGL, by using eglSwapInterval(dpy, 0) since vblank_mode environment variable/driconf won't actually work with the current master, I would receive _roughly_ the same performance... EGL was about 3 fps slower. This is greater than the margin of error. I haven't yet had time to run Dante through a timedemo series with/without this patch set, however: > > Anyway, roll-our-own-X-protocol needs to die. Agreed. > Reviewed-by: Chad Versace <chad.vers...@linux.intel.com> > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev -- Oliver McFadden. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
