On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 10:29, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:20, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:13, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > [...] > > > What do you mean ? There is no way the new radeonfb would be slower > > > than the old one in 2.6. If you run in 8bpp, you won't get any better > > > without acceleration and the 2.6 radeonfb isn't accelerated (neither > > > the old one nor the new one). 2.4 was. I don't have time to look into > > > the accel code for 2.6 for now. > > > > Now that you say that, I find that it might be some scheduling problem > > and not the radeonfb: > > > > When I start find /home for the first time it scrolls slowly. When I do > > it a second time it is still slow. But when I did it a third time it is > > superb fast (only 45sec vs some minutes / approx the same in xterm)... > > > > When I do it now it seems to accelerate... it starts slow but becomes > > much faster... > > What nice level does the X server run at? A negative value may actually > hurt with the 2.6 scheduler.
0 :-( I tried to in/decrease the niceness... and indeed it becomes even more bumpy when I nice it say -19 ... Soeren
