On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 09:37 -0800, Jeffrey Baker wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Michel Dänzer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 10:57 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:48:52PM -0500, Thomas Jaeger wrote: > >> > You really need the glyph cache in the X server to get decent text > >> > performance out of the 2.5 intel driver. The patches are pretty > >> > straightforward to backport, but it is my understanding that a 1.6 > >> > server will be uploaded to jaunty soon, so you might want to wait for > >> > that. > >> > >> I wonder whether the Intel driver can get at least close to Nvidia driver. > >> > >> I ran x11perf on Nvidia system and Xserver *without* the glyph cache. > >> Compared > >> to these numbers, the Intel driver seems to be a bit comic with 56k > >> glyphs/sec > >> with EXA or 215k glyphs/sec with UXA. > > > > Note that the glyph cache is specific to EXA, which the nvidia driver > > doesn't use. UXA on the other hand may have the glyph cache in its copy > > of the EXA code. > > > > I'm not sure what's the bottleneck for the intel driver at this point, > > the radeon driver easily gets 500k/s and beyond (which is still a far > > cry from the numbers you measured, but already seems to mostly avoid it > > being any practical limitation). Some of it may just be down to the > > hardware (memory bandwidth, shader units etc.). > > I seriously doubt it, since performance was far better last week, last > month, and a year ago with the same hardware. I think we can safely > pin this current problem on the software.
The above was referring to x11perf -aa10text, not your testcase. It sounds like you have a good start (known good and bad versions) for tracking down the regression you're seeing. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
