On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 11:55:56AM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 18:11 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:29:49PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > > $ glxgears > > > > Failed to initialize TTM buffer manager. Falling back to classic. > > > > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.884 FPS > > > > 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.621 FPS > > > > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.818 FPS > > > > > > glxgears is not a benchmark. > > > > > > We sync to vblank because running glxgears at 1000fps is dumb. > > > > I am going to go out on a limb and guess we're going to see a crapload > > of reports of "performance regression" due to reduced glxgears frame > > rates. > > > > Mayhaps this could be headed off by changing glxgears output a bit? > > Something like: > > > > $ glxgears > > Failed to initialize TTM buffer manager. Falling back to classic. > > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.0% synchronized > > 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 99.93% synchronized > > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 100.0% synchronized > > I just committed something similar to the Mesa repository. If it > detects that vsync is happening, it logs a message to that effect. The > detection is not 100% reliable, but it's as good as I can get it. > > [...@localhost xdemos]$ glxgears > Mesa: Initializing x86-64 optimizations > Mesa: Mesa 7.5-devel DEBUG build Jan 30 2009 16:45:54 > Mesa warning: couldn't open libtxc_dxtn.so, software DXTn > compression/decompression unavailable > Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be > approximately the same as the montior refresh rate. > 295 frames in 5.0 seconds = 58.948 FPS > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.914 FPS
Hi Ian, Cool, that should help, although won't people ignore the introductory text and fixate on the fps number? Bryce _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
