On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 13:46, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: > Michel Dänzer escribio el 21/07/03 13:09: > > First of all, you mentioned in another post that you use x11perf to > > create X11 stress. Are there also problems with real world apps? > > "Real world" apps work properly (except for the Gnome theme manager > which displays garbage).
Probably a GTK bug, not related to this thread. The point is real world as opposed to synthetic throughput benchmarks like x11perf. > I only find video performance using Linux a lot lower than using > any of the Mac OS's. Which isn't very surprising, as they can use parts of the graphics chip that we don't have specs for, for one. > > Also keep in mind that neither the vanilla 2.4 kernel nor the X server > > were designed for low latency. Have you tried the low latency and/or > > O(1) scheduler kernel patches, and not running the X server with > > negative nice values if you are? > > Both of those patches (A. Morton and R. Love's ones) were applied to my > kernel. Beware that at least the low latency patch needs fiddling with arch/ppc/config.in to actually be enabled (check with grep LOLAT .config), and that the preempt patch (which I assume you mean by R. Love's) actually made things worse for me when I tried it on PPC a while ago. This may have been fixed in the meantime though. > I don't know about running the X server with different nice values, sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common > which advantage would I get? The X server might take less CPU away from other processes. Or maybe the problem is the other way around. :) YMMV. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
