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
29 matches
Mail list logo