On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Daniel van Vugt <daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote: > At first glance, comparing frame rates between direct (single) and nested > (double) server configurations reveals nothing unexpected... > > Full screen > Direct (bypass) 2600 > Direct (bypass off) 2400 > Nested (bypass) 2450 > Nested (bypass off) 2330 > > But for surfaces which can't be bypassed, something strange happens; nesting > is faster! > > Windowed > Nested 4890 > Direct 4400 > > My best theory right now is that we're crippling Mir in the single server > case due to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1253868 > and nesting provides a workaround for that problem by supplying extra levels > of buffering.
Not sure I'm following your reasoning here: The bug states exactly the opposite, i.e., additional buffering wouldn't help. In addition: I do not see how a steady-state update scheme on the client-side is a problem here. If there are more than two buffers available per surface, the client almost immediately receives a new buffer when it calls next_buffer. Sure, there is always only one buffer in flight, but I cannot see why this would lead to the numbers you are reporting here. Cheers, Thomas > > Can anyone else think why nested would sometimes be faster than not nested? > > - Daniel > > -- > Mir-devel mailing list > Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel -- Mir-devel mailing list Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
