On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:03:35PM -0700, Lloyd Brown wrote: > Something else very odd, as well: > > I was just running glxgears (good performance) on one display, and then > when I ran glxinfo on a second display, the glxgears performance dropped > significantly, and glxgears disappeared from the output of nvidia-smi. > > Here's some example output from the glxgears; you can see about the time > that I ran glxinfo in a separate shell, on a separate display: > > > [lbrown@m8g-1-8 ~]$ DISPLAY=:0.0 glxgears > > Running synchronized to the vertical refresh. The framerate should be > > approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
O/T response (I think I understand what you are trying to do, but the temptation to say this is just too great) - LOL, for some of us, that last sentence you quoted is true (approx 60fps in my case on current/recent AMD and intel drivers) > > 62559 frames in 5.0 seconds = 12511.681 FPS > > 65114 frames in 5.0 seconds = 13022.790 FPS [...] > > 34837 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6966.968 FPS > > 10710 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2141.983 FPS > > 10645 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2128.814 FPS > > Now, the "slow-running" glxgears instance is closer to 350 or 375 FPS, > so this is still better. But it really appears that Xorg has some kind > of resource shared between the instances. I don't see how else one Xorg > display could have this kind of effect on another. > You mentione 'nvidia-smi' so you appear to be using a binary driver. If you don't get any useful ideas here, maybe ask on an nvidia list or forum ? ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: %(user_address)s
