On 03.08.2016 09:40, Eric Anholt wrote: > Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> writes: > >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daen...@amd.com> >> >> This change has two effects: >> >> 1. Only calls FlushCallbacks when we're actually flushing data to a >> client. The unnecessary FlushCallback calls could cause significant >> performance degradation with compositing, which is significantly >> reduced even without any driver changes. >> >> 2. By passing the ClientPtr to FlushCallbacks, drivers can completely >> eliminate unnecessary flushing of GPU commands by keeping track of >> whether we're flushing any XDamageNotify events to the client for >> which the corresponding rendering commands haven't been flushed to >> the GPU yet. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daen...@amd.com> >> --- >> >> See https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/2016-August/000977.html >> for an example of how to take advantage of this change to eliminate >> unnecessary GPU flushes. > > Note: Mesa's DRI2 is (supposed to be) doing XSync() during glXWaitX() to > ensure that the server has processed the client's X requests and flushed > its batchbuffers, so that the kernel serializes the batchbuffer from X > before the next rendering by Mesa. I think your xf86-video-ati patches > will break that.
Can you elaborate how? I honestly can't imagine. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
