On Fre, 2011-02-18 at 14:23 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/11 Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com:
2011/2/11 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:44 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15
On 02/21/2011 01:11 PM, Michel D�nzer wrote:
On Fre, 2011-02-18 at 14:23 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/11 Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com:
2011/2/11 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:44 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer
2011/2/11 Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com:
2011/2/11 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:44 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It turns out that part of the
On Mit, 2011-02-09 at 21:09 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
I did express my suspicion about that during the review...
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
- Performance loss seems less than 10% instead of the previous 33%.
- It's not needed to set
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 18:21 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It's not needed to set deferred_mixed_pixmap to NULL, because
exaDoMigration_mixed will handle that.
True, so...
@@ -721,9 +721,13 @@ ExaBlockHandler(int screenNum, pointer blockData,
pointer pTimeout,
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
- Performance loss seems about 5% instead of the previous 33%.
- It's not needed to set
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
- Performance loss seems about 5% instead
2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:44 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
2011/2/10 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Don, 2011-02-10 at 20:15 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
- Performance loss seems less than 10% instead of the previous 33%.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Maathuis
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote:
- It turns out that part of the problem was actually on the driver side.
- The performance loss is not worth the small visual improvement.
- This should ensure low latency at low throughput.
- Performance loss seems
12 matches
Mail list logo