Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> If this was a test of just two memory manager implementations, the
>> benchmarks would speak for themselves.  However, there are at least two
>> driver changes I caught on first review of gallium-i915-current's
>> i915simple (which I assume is what you were testing, given that the last
>> tests I've heard from you guys were using that) that would have an
>> impact on performance:
>>    
>
> As far as I know the gallium driver isn't involved in these tests --
> this is a comparison between the original i915tex and newer versions
> of the driver.
>  
The i915tex driver in the benchmark is the i915tex driver from the
i915tex_branch of mesa. That's the original i915tex driver we released
patched up for master xf86-video-intel and drm, and a slab pool to avoid
the larger memory footprint that comes from the user-space batch buffer
pool and the texture allocation size granularity. At this point, Gallium
is not in any way involved.

/Thomas




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@list...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel