On Monday, January 4th, 2021 at 1:36 PM, Vlad Zahorodnii <vlad.zahorod...@kde.org> wrote:
> On 1/4/21 2:05 PM, Simon Ser wrote: > > I don't think these would benefit from the optimization you're > > suggesting. They don't cycle between pre-rendered buffers, for > > instance. > > No, no, it was just an example when the surface damage and the buffer > damage might be different, I don't necessarily want to optimize that > extremely rare case. The issue is that the compositor has simply no idea > how exactly the client utilizes the buffers. Keeping the last N surface > damages and accumulating them is a good heuristic, but it may produce > incorrect results in some cases + it is redundant if the app uses > hardware acceleration. > > The bottom line is that shared memory client buffers tank performance > and something should be probably done about it. OK, this still doesn't explain which/how/why existing clients would benefit from the optimization, and how much performance will really improve in practice. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
