10-50% CPU used by xorg?

[Eric Anholt]

On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 12:21 -0700, m h wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> >
> >  On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 09:19 +0100, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> >  > Hi Eric,
> >  >
> >  > > EXA is bound to be slow on 965 until we land the render fixes (currently
> >  > >  sitting on intel-batchbuffer, but we could probably just cherry-pick
> >  > >  them out since they're orthogonal to the batchbuffer work).  But if
> >  > >  you're seeing issues on 915 or earlier, the only improvement we're
> >  > >  expecting to see is from TTM-backed buffers, which might help if you're
> >  > >  limited by migration (or might not).
> >  >
> >  > So does that mean GMA950 based chips will not benefit of the batchbuffer work?
> >  > I got several different answers to this questions, some say "yes it
> >  > will", others say "only 965".
> >  >
> >  > It would be great if you could clearify this.
> >
> >  Yes, to clarify above: The expected result on pre-965 is just that it
> >  will change performance for different workloads, some for better, some
> >  for worse.  It's not like on 965 where we've got changes that are
> >  speeding up everything you do with Render.  I can imagine both large
> >  improvements for the "better" case and large losses for the "worse"
> >  case.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> (Pardon the dumb question).  Will this batch-buffer work get around
> the DRI being disabled on wide (dual screen) monitors?

No.  Why would they be associated?

-- 
Eric Anholt                             anholt at FreeBSD.org
eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080228/8cb93e3d/attachment.pgp>