[Openchrome-users] XAA and fallback

[Mario Rugiero]

2012/4/6 Llu?s Batlle i Rossell <viric at viric.name>

> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:50:18PM +0200, Llu?s Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 02:16:36PM -0300, Mario Rugiero wrote:
> > > I'm not sure. To talk about the path I think I should know the
> algorithm
> > > used. The thing is that flash uses your CPU only, so all the processing
> > > consumes CPU cycles, mplayer, since it uses xv, uses the GPU for some
> > > operations, thus using less CPU cycles than flash. The algorithm used
> can
> > > actually be the same, mplayer could be even more resource consuming
> > > overall, but it uses less CPU because its process is done elsewhere,
> that's
> > > what I mean.
> >
> > I've seen that the destination lines of my test go to the AGP addresses,
> > 0xb0000000.
> >
> > I've also tried x11perf -shmput500, which may be similar to what
> flashplayer
> > uses. I get a maximum of 53/s; What do you get, in K8M800/K8N800?
> >
> > If flash takes 50% of the cpu, may be at the limit for 25fps with the
> 50% left..
> >
> > I've tested a slightly newer notebook, with an Intel controller, and
> 'x11perf
> > -shmput500' gives 1150/s, which is about 20 times more... Shouldn't the
> > unichrome chip do more than 53/s?
> >
>
> Ah, Mario, remember that my system shows 50% of usage of flash, 50% of
> usage of
> X. The usage of X is in that backtrace I pasted at the first post. I don't
> try
> to fix the 50% of usage of flash, but that of X.
>
Oh, sorry the, I misread it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-users/attachments/20120406/6597f8c9/attachment.html