very slow performance of glxgears (68 fps)

[Ian Romanick]

On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 02:30 +0000, John Tapsell wrote:
> 2009/1/31 Bryce Harrington <bryce at canonical.com>:
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:29:49PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> >> > $ glxgears
> >> > Failed to initialize TTM buffer manager.  Falling back to classic.
> >> > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.884 FPS
> >> > 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.621 FPS
> >> > 300 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.818 FPS
> >>
> >> glxgears is not a benchmark.
> >>
> >> We sync to vblank because running glxgears at 1000fps is dumb.
> >
> > I am going to go out on a limb and guess we're going to see a crapload
> > of reports of "performance regression" due to reduced glxgears frame
> > rates.
> 
> What was the purpose in this change?  I have never heard a user
> complain that glxgears is running too fast, and that they want it to
> vsync.   What's the use case of this change exactly?

It has nothing to do with gears running to fast.  It has to do with
running real apps at crazy framerates and sucking power (and battery).
It is also used to avoid tearing, though I don't think we've got that
quite right yet.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20090201/9d06a795/attachment.pgp>