On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 13:46, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
Michel Dänzer escribio el 21/07/03 13:09:
First of all, you mentioned in another post that
you use x11perf to
create X11 stress. Are there also problems with real world apps?
"Real world" apps work properly (except for the Gnome theme manager
which displays garbage).
Probably a GTK bug, not related to this thread. The point is real world
as opposed to synthetic throughput benchmarks like x11perf.
I only find video performance using Linux a lot lower
than using
any of the Mac OS's.
Which isn't very surprising, as they can use parts of the graphics chip
that we don't have specs for, for one.
Also keep in
mind that neither the vanilla 2.4 kernel nor the X server
were designed for low latency. Have you tried the low latency and/or
O(1) scheduler kernel patches, and not running the X server with
negative nice values if you are?
Both of those patches (A. Morton and R. Love's ones) were applied to my
kernel.
Beware that at least the low latency patch needs fiddling with
arch/ppc/config.in to actually be enabled (check with grep LOLAT
.config), and that the preempt patch (which I assume you mean by R.
Love's) actually made things worse for me when I tried it on PPC a while
ago. This may have been fixed in the meantime though.
I don't know about running the X server with
different nice values,
sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common
which advantage would I get?
The X server might take less CPU away from other processes. Or maybe the
problem is the other way around. :) YMMV.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre enthusiast \
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer