Anyone have any further thoughts on this?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Anyone have any further thoughts on this?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> I'll admit that I'm struggling to understand the issue here. If the
>>> vblank counter is incremented at the time of vblan
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:36:23PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Assuming we're sleeping rather than busy-looping, that's certainly ok.
> >My previous experiments with radeon indicated that the scanout irq was
> >certainly not entirely reliable
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:36:23PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Assuming we're sleeping rather than busy-looping, that's certainly ok.
> >My previous experiments with radeon indicated that the scanout irq was
> >certainly not entirely reliable
On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'll admit that I'm struggling to understand the issue here. If the
vblank counter is incremented at the time of vblank (which
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >I'll admit that I'm struggling to understand the issue here. If the
> >vblank counter is incremented at the time of vblank (which isn't the
> >case for radeon, it seems, but as fa
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:27:51PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>
>> It's not broken hardware, but fast ping-ponging it on and off can
>> make the vblank counter and vblank timestamps unreliable for apps
>> that need high timing precision, espec
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >For Radeon, I'd have thought you could handle this by scheduling
>> >an irq
>> >for the beginning of scanout (avivo ha
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >For Radeon, I'd have thought you could handle this by scheduling
>> >an irq
>> >for the beginning of scanout (avivo ha
On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>
>> I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
>> avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
>> apps which regularly neeed the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:27:51PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> It's not broken hardware, but fast ping-ponging it on and off can
> make the vblank counter and vblank timestamps unreliable for apps
> that need high timing precision, especially for the ones that use
> the OML_sync_control extensio
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:26:37AM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >I'll admit that I'm struggling to understand the issue here. If the
> >vblank counter is incremented at the time of vblank (which isn't the
> >case for radeon, it seems, but as fa
On Mit, 2011-11-16 at 09:20 -0500, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
> for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
> workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
> generating a huge num
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
> avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
> apps which regularly neeed the vblank counter value, as that could make
> the counter unre
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:27:51PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
It's not broken hardware, but fast ping-ponging it on and off can
make the vblank counter and vblank timestamps unreliable for apps
that need high timing precision, especially for
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 07:27:51PM +0100, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> It's not broken hardware, but fast ping-ponging it on and off can
> make the vblank counter and vblank timestamps unreliable for apps
> that need high timing precision, especially for the ones that use
> the OML_sync_control extensio
On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
apps which regularly neeed the vblank c
2011/11/16 Matthew Garrett :
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
>> I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
>> avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
>> apps which regularly neeed the vblank counter value, as
2011/11/16 Matthew Garrett :
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
>
>> I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
>> avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
>> apps which regularly neeed the vblank counter value, as
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:03:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> I thought the main reason for the delay wasn't broken hardware but to
> avoid constantly ping-ponging the vblank IRQ between on and off with
> apps which regularly neeed the vblank counter value, as that could make
> the counter unre
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 09:20 -0500, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
> for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
> workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
> generating a huge numb
The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
generating a huge number of wakeups that are entirely unnecessary but which
consume meas
On Mit, 2011-11-16 at 09:20 -0500, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
> for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
> workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
> generating a huge num
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 09:20 -0500, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
> for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
> workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
> generating a huge numb
The drm core currently waits 5 seconds from userspace dropping a request
for vblanks to vblanks actually being disabled. This appears to be a
workaround for broken hardware, but results in a mostly idle desktop
generating a huge number of wakeups that are entirely unnecessary but which
consume meas
26 matches
Mail list logo
