On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 14:22 +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 11:25 +0200, Thomas Hilber wrote:
>
Oh, aptitude solved the dependencies for me (needed to explicitly
downgrade one package, then all was well.)
Here's the "vmstat 1" output during mplayer playback... i.e. no madness
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:22:46PM +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get install xserver-xorg xserver-xorg-core
> The following packages have unmet dependencies.
> xserver-xorg: Depends: x11-xkb-utils but it is not going to be
> installed
> PreDepends: x1
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 11:25 +0200, Thomas Hilber wrote:
Good heavens, this is all getting rather heavyweight :)
> oh - a very interesting fact.
> that's different to mine (see my output of top below). Xorg takes only 0.7%(!)
> CPU on my system. Are there some special patches in ubuntu that causes
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:22:53PM +1000, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
> Since you're using the vsync irq in any case, the best solution would
> be to notify user space at irq time that it should 'PutImage' a new
> frame.
I know what you want to say. But according to my understanding xine has
it's ow
On 14 Aug 2008, at 21:53, Thomas Hilber wrote:
> a good idea, but in the case of 'xserver-xorg-video-ati' true hardware
> double buffers are supported. If a new PutImage() comes in the DDX
> simply
> toggles to the other double buffer and starts to write there. No
> matter
> this buffer ever
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 01:15:58PM +0300, Petri Hintukainen wrote:
> to, 2008-08-14 kello 11:25 +0200, Thomas Hilber kirjoitti:
> > Does the Xserver poll for some resources not available or something?
>
> Maybe the driver is waiting for free overlay buffer ? Some drivers wait
> for free hardware o
to, 2008-08-14 kello 11:25 +0200, Thomas Hilber kirjoitti:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:09:45PM +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> > Xorg process is taking 40% CPU, with vdr taking 25%. The 'system' CPU
> > usage is 32%, with 16% for user processes.
[...]
> Does the Xserver poll for some resources not a
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:09:45PM +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
>
>
>> So, I started looking for other reasons. Whilst X + vdr are running, the
>> Xorg process is taking 40% CPU, with vdr taking 25%. The 'system' CPU
>> usage is 32%, with 16% for user processes. I thought maybe it was using
>>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:09:45PM +0100, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> OK, found a suitable recording, and after a couple of 'play 1 begin' to
> SVDRP it starts OK. The picture is pretty good, but it still shifts
> around the screen a bit:
that's because PLL encounters very large increments of 'sync poin
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:50:43AM +0300, Jouni Karvo wrote:
> your trick is the VGA->SCART cable. I was using the TVout from the
> card. I have ordered the components for the cable, and I hope I'll be
> able to solder them together during the weekend. I hope I can then
> reproduce your succe
When I started to convert my vdr recordings to h264 using ffmpeg
-vcodec libx264. I saw that running it without -threads or with
-threads set to 2, it used the same cpu usage. When I changed it to
-threads 3 I started to see more than 100% usage. Perhaps decoding
should also use -threads 3 to see i
11 matches
Mail list logo
