On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 18:08 -0200, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:41:20PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote: > > Which should be a material improvement for everybody, even if it doesn't > > reduce the number of code paths it's at least no more complex than what > > we have. > > I'm not that convinced yet that conservative's SIGIO approach performs better > than the method using main thread handler. For instance, I'm afraid that it > could penalize too much other running X requests.
Easy enough to test - make a uevent mouse device and jiggle it 500 times a second and see if your x11perf numbers change - but I would be really surprised. Also seems like a weird thing to care about, I'm willing to pay 3% in worst case rendering speed to get the cursor to move smoothly. > Anyway, I'd like to ask if you can hang these patches for more one week until > I come with numbers benchmarking all these different approaches. Well, the libc5 bit is merged, but otherwise sure. I was mostly looking for feedback from non-Linux people, since I doubt the conservative path will see much use on Linux once input threads lands (in the same way that -nosilk is basically unused). - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
