Any known problems with vmplayer and git driver?

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Felix Blanke <felixblanke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> you mentioned virtualbox and vmware.
>>
>>
>> Does virtualbox work or does it crash, too? If virtualbox isn't working too it seems
>> to be a problem with some other piece of software.
>> I'm using virtualbox with the radeon driver for month without any issues.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Felix
>>
>
> I'll check that later today.
>
> The problem I had with Virtualbox was it didn't clean itself up as
> well after the reboot so I had to reinstall the VMs from backups which
> takes a lot of time. VMware seemed to do a nicer job of handling this
> problem so it was easier for me to test.
>
> I can see you're point as valid in testing however so barring some
> other inputs I'll give it a shot. Maybe I can just clone a VM so if
> it's damaged it doesn't require going back to a backup.
>
> I would have thought that if Virtualbox also crashes that it points to
> the same root problem and not to some other piece of software, so
> possibly I'm misunderstanding your logic on that one? Not a big deal
> though. I'll try to get the data.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>

Hi,
   OK, as for the Virtualbox question - there were no problems I could
discover with Virtualbox and the git version of the ATI driver. It
seemed to work fine.

   Unfortunately the VMware problems continued to plague me. I did
manage to speed up glxgears significantly by switching the softpipe
rendering back to Classic instead of gallium. The question I cannot
answer is why does glxgears render on softpipe and not the r600
identifier? Anyone know an easy answer to that?

mark at c2stable ~ $ eselect mesa list
i915 (Intel 915, 945)
i965 (Intel 965, G/Q3x, G/Q4x)
r300 (Radeon R300-R500)
  [1]   classic *
  [2]   gallium
r600 (Radeon R600-R700, Evergreen, Northern Islands)
  [1]   classic *
  [2]   gallium
sw (Software renderer)
  [1]   classic
  [2]   gallium *
mark at c2stable ~ $ glxgears -info
GL_RENDERER   = Gallium 0.4 on softpipe
GL_VERSION    = 2.1 Mesa 7.10
GL_VENDOR     = VMware, Inc.
GL_EXTENSIONS = <SNIP>
893 frames in 5.0 seconds = 178.496 FPS
1014 frames in 5.0 seconds = 202.647 FPS
1012 frames in 5.0 seconds = 202.329 FPS
968 frames in 5.0 seconds = 193.494 FPS
1024 frames in 5.0 seconds = 204.731 FPS
^C
mark at c2stable ~ $

mark at c2stable ~ $ eselect mesa list
i915 (Intel 915, 945)
i965 (Intel 965, G/Q3x, G/Q4x)
r300 (Radeon R300-R500)
  [1]   classic *
  [2]   gallium
r600 (Radeon R600-R700, Evergreen, Northern Islands)
  [1]   classic *
  [2]   gallium
sw (Software renderer)
  [1]   classic *
  [2]   gallium
mark at c2stable ~ $ glxgears -info
GL_RENDERER   = Software Rasterizer
GL_VERSION    = 2.1 Mesa 7.10
GL_VENDOR     = Mesa Project
GL_EXTENSIONS = <SNIP>
4443 frames in 5.0 seconds = 888.445 FPS
4677 frames in 5.0 seconds = 935.342 FPS
4698 frames in 5.0 seconds = 939.488 FPS
^C
mark at c2stable ~ $


   At this point I have a suspicion that another part of the problem
is that when running VMware there is something strange going on with
whose GL is in use. As you can see above, when using Classic the
GL_VENDOR is listed as Mesa. When running gallium it's listed as
VMware. I'm afraid at this point understanding why one is used instead
of another is _way_beyond my capabilities.

   As I've spent a couple of days messing around with a lot of issues
on this machine and haven't gotten any work done I took the easy way
out and installed, for the first time, the closed source ATI driver.
VMware & Virtualbox work fine, glxgears is happy at 2200FPS, and the
GL_VENDOR is listed as ATI, all answers that make sense to me.

mark at c2stable ~ $ glxgears -info
GL_RENDERER   = ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
GL_VERSION    = 4.0.10317 Compatibility Profile Context
GL_VENDOR     = ATI Technologies Inc.
GL_EXTENSIONS = <SNIP>
10660 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2131.993 FPS
9841 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1967.736 FPS
10237 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2046.477 FPS
10393 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2077.362 FPS
9991 frames in 5.0 seconds = 1997.771 FPS
10279 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2055.750 FPS
^C
mark at c2stable ~ $

   I hate to use the closed source driver. First time it's been on
this machine since I built it last April, but I need to get work done.
I'll try to catch up with your work at a future date.

Cheers,
Mark