> Oh, damage. A compositing WM? If you turn off compositing, do you see
> similar performance levels to xorg-1.6?
> -Chris
>
If "Composite" is disabled, the current X scores much better than the 1.6.5
server
in most cases. But there are a few exceptions ... for the worst of those cases,
I
also
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 23:22 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote:
> Yes, there is
> >15400.00.54 GetProperty
> >15500.00.54 QueryPointer
> but we also see
>
> 815.01.21 X protocol NoOperation
NoOp isn't a round trip, it does not generate a reply. That test
measures how
> Oh, damage. A compositing WM? If you turn off compositing, do you see
> similar performance levels to xorg-1.6?
> -Chris
>
That makes difference 16.300 reps speed up to 1.280.000 reps ... 78.5
times faster.
I think I will rerun the tests.
cu,
Knut
On Thu, 12 May 2011 10:24:00 +0200, Knut Petersen
wrote:
>
> > Please do something like 'perf record -f -g -a x11perf -d :0 -worect10;
> > perf report | head -150' and paste the output.
> > -Chris
> >
> Attached find the perf log
Oh, damage. A compositing WM? If you turn off compositing, do you
> Please do something like 'perf record -f -g -a x11perf -d :0 -worect10;
> perf report | head -150' and paste the output.
> -Chris
>
Attached find the perf log
Knut
# Events: 19K cycles
#
# Overhead CommandShared Object
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:19:39 +0200, Knut Petersen
wrote:
>
> >> 12Operation
> >> -- -
> >> 965000.0 0.016 10x10 wide rectangle outline
> > Something is still not quite right here. This should be mostly CPU bound,
> > and even my Atom gets 734k.
> >
>> 12Operation
>> -- -
>> 965000.0 0.016 10x10 wide rectangle outline
> Something is still not quite right here. This should be mostly CPU bound,
> and even my Atom gets 734k.
>
> Can you check that (a) it is CPU bound and (b) the worst offenders
> ac
As I do have only a few minutes now, a few comments:
1: The complete trees are compared, all modules/libraries are either old or
new. No debug-versions.
2: Speculating about cores is definitely wrong -- the Pentium M Dothan
definitely is a single core cpu.
3. There often is a "choked most" (1)
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 16:46 +0200, Knut Petersen wrote:
> Yes, I made some mistakes during my first measurements.
>
> Below find better results. They are made on the same machine,
> with the same kernel, at the same speed, with the same x11perf
> program, absolutely nothing changed.
You don't men
On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:46:12 +0200, Knut Petersen
wrote:
> Yes, I made some mistakes during my first measurements.
>
> Below find better results. They are made on the same machine,
> with the same kernel, at the same speed, with the same x11perf
> program, absolutely nothing changed.
>
> I used
Yes, I made some mistakes during my first measurements.
Below find better results. They are made on the same machine,
with the same kernel, at the same speed, with the same x11perf
program, absolutely nothing changed.
I used x11perfcomp -ro and sorted the output, worst results for
the currrent gi
As a point of comparison, here are the similar results with master of all
the various trees on my 1.6GHz N450 (Atom+PineView) [so not strictly an
apples-to-apples comparison, your CPU is about 4-5x faster, but PNV is
about 3-4x faster than the 915GM (clock-for-clock)]:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 20:22:21
On 5/8/11 2:22 PM, Knut Petersen wrote:
Software
===
1.86 MHz system:
opensuse 11.2
X.Org X Server 1.6.5
Release Date: 2009-10-11
kernel 2.6.38.5
2.00 MHz system:
opensuse 11.4
X.Org X Server 1.10.99
git-tree, 2011-may-7
kernel 2.6.39-rc4-drm-intel-staging
I'd start by suspecting differen
I compared the performance of X11 on two otherwise idle machines.
Hardware
Both have
identical mainboards (Aopen i915GMm-hfs),
identical memory and BIOS setup.
Both cpus are Intel Pentium M mobile (Dothan).
One runs at 1.86 Mhz, the other runs at 2.00 MHz
Software
===
1.86 MHz system
14 matches
Mail list logo
