On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
> On 04/04/2017 07:12 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> O
Hi, Rob,
On 04/04/2017 07:12 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at
On 04/04/2017 07:12 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM,
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:4
On 04/04/2017 05:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:4
On 04/04/2017 04:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> But one more worrying
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
>>> too slow to be usable. I get about one frame every 5 sec
On 04/04/2017 02:49 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
too s
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 4 April 2017 at 10:00, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Th
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
>>> too slow to be usable. I get about one frame every 5 sec
On 04/04/2017 02:34 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
>> too slow to be usable. I get about one frame every 5 seconds from Ubuntu
>> compiz. The culprit seems to be unw_get_pro
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> But one more worrying thing is that with these fixes, debug_flush gets
> too slow to be usable. I get about one frame every 5 seconds from Ubuntu
> compiz. The culprit seems to be unw_get_proc_name(). Is there a way we
> can save intermedia
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 4 April 2017 at 10:00, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:33 P
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:13 P
On 4 April 2017 at 10:00, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob
On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thoma
On 04/03/2017 11:09 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thoma
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
>
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
Hi, Rob,
On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> It's kinda
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>>> wrote:
Hi, Rob,
On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> It's kinda
On 04/03/2017 07:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
>>> Hi, Rob,
>>>
>>> On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
a
Hi Rob,
On 24 March 2017 at 21:21, Rob Clark wrote:
> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first
> place. If available, use libunwind instead. The backtrace format is
> based on what xserver and
On 04/03/2017 07:13 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> Hi, Rob,
>>
>> On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
>>> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
> wrote:
>> Hi, Rob,
>>
>> On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
>>> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrac
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
> On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
>> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first
>> place. If available, use libunwind
Hi, Rob,
On 03/24/2017 10:21 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
> and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first
> place. If available, use libunwind instead. The backtrace format is
> based on what xserver and wes
On 24.03.2017 22:21, Rob Clark wrote:
It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first
place. If available, use libunwind instead. The backtrace format is
based on what xserver and weston use, since it i
It's kinda sad that (a) we don't have debug_backtrace support on !X86
and that (b) we re-invent our own crude backtrace support in the first
place. If available, use libunwind instead. The backtrace format is
based on what xserver and weston use, since it is nice not to have to
figure out a diffe
30 matches
Mail list logo