On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 14:41 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > I'm going to look at the case I "think" I hit an improvement for and > > dissect _why_, then get back to you.
I'll check this again shortly.. (I recall I was testing this with the display lists anyway).. > > I'm chasing my code right now to see why it is emitting lots of batches > > when not using display lists for benchmarking purposes. I got my figures > > muddled up before.. I'm seeing 5 batches / frame when using Display > > lists, and nearer 40 when not. (I previously reported the other way > > around). > > I'd love to know too. INTEL_DEBUG=state (in the midst of much other > spam) dumps out a report of how many times various state changes got > flagged, which may highlight a change between the two modes. The large number of batches was due to a dumb dumb thing I was doing with VBOs.. rather than just discarding the memory after rendering some primitives, I was mapping the same VBO and re-uploading, causing synchronisation. Actually, I had two VBOs and was alternating between them, but was still of course causing synchronisation at the map stage. Fixed now, so my non display-list code is much faster again. I guess it kind of begs the question why the compiled display list needs 4 or 5 batches to do what my own code manages in 1. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
