From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2004-10-07 14:45:07
|
Paulo R. Dallan wrote: > On Thursday 07 October 2004 10:37, Felix K=FChling wrote: >=20 >>On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:04:02 -0300 >>"Paulo R. Dallan" <pr...@uo...> wrote: >=20 >=20 > <snip> >=20 >>There may be a problem with the new glxgears from X.org. When I run it >>alone I get the full framerate I can expect (~385 fps on ProSavage DDR)= . >>When I run a CPU hog at the same time ("while true; do true; done" in >>bash) The frame rate goes down to 10 fps and glxgears gets only 1% of >>the CPU. With the old glxgears from XFree86 the frame rate reduces to >>about 195 and the CPU is shared about 50:50 between glxgears and the >>CPU-hogging bash. >=20 >=20 > Also noticed that. I usually have some browser windows open when i run=20 > glxgears. If they are running (loading), glxgears go deep down (especia= lly=20 > when starting X). My tests were made with no extra activity (only the x= term=20 > and glxgears itself). I noticed that if I even move the mouse, the fps = get a=20 > (little) drop (something like 40 to 80 decrease). >=20 >=20 >>In order to draw any meaningful conclusions from the CPU usage with r20= 0 >>you need to change frame throttling to busy waiting. You can do that >>using driconf or on the command line with >> >> fthrottle_mode=3D0 glxgears >> >>Run top on a different terminal and see how much CPU is used by >>glxgears. It should be close to 100%. If significant CPU power is used >>by a different process that would explain the low FPS. If the CPU is >>idle then there might be something wrong with process scheduling in the >>kernel. >=20 >=20 > Well, did the test as you mentioned. When glxgears is running, it gets = 1.6 or=20 > 2% of CPU, but X is getting 97 - 98%. Any conclusions from that? That makes it look like indirect rendering. "glxgears -info" gives some=20 information that might be helpful. Keith |