On Monday 10 May 2010, Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.com> wrote: > On Friday 7 May 2010, Simon Farnsworth <simon.farnswo...@onelan.com> wrote: > > I've attached my test program (it's based on our C++ OpenGL compositor, > > but cut down to just test OpenGL pageflipping) as performance.c, and my > > test X stack's Xorg.0.log after one run of "performance -indirect" > > (which ran for 573 frames). I'm using a 32-bit PAE kernel - I can add > > information as required, and I'm happy to run tests or experiments for > > people. > > > > 2) How should I go about fixing compositing? Should I fix indirect > > rendering to use pageflipping (and if so, where do I start looking for > > the code that's getting it wrong), or should I make TFP work when direct > > rendering (and again, where should I start looking)? > > Is this the expected behaviour when indirect rendering? If so, I'll dive > back into the stack and see if I can work out why TFP and direct rendering > don't interact nicely. If not, roughly where should I look to fix it?
I've found why direct rendering and TFP don't interact nicely, and it's a client side error. Briefly, my compositor was being started as our signage user, who does not have access to /dev/dri/card0, so was falling back to swrast. When you're using swrast, TFP only appears to work for pixmaps you create, not for compositing pixmaps. Sorry for the noise, -- Simon Farnsworth Software Engineer ONELAN Limited http://www.onelan.com/ _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
