Nested servers frame rate
thomas.voss at canonical.com
Wed Dec 18 08:58:50 UTC 2013
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Daniel van Vugt
<daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com> wrote:
> At first glance, comparing frame rates between direct (single) and nested
> (double) server configurations reveals nothing unexpected...
> Full screen
> Direct (bypass) 2600
> Direct (bypass off) 2400
> Nested (bypass) 2450
> Nested (bypass off) 2330
> But for surfaces which can't be bypassed, something strange happens; nesting
> is faster!
> Nested 4890
> Direct 4400
> My best theory right now is that we're crippling Mir in the single server
> case due to:
> and nesting provides a workaround for that problem by supplying extra levels
> of buffering.
Not sure I'm following your reasoning here: The bug states exactly the
opposite, i.e., additional buffering wouldn't help.
In addition: I do not see how a steady-state update scheme on the
client-side is a problem here. If there are more than two buffers
available per surface, the client almost immediately receives a new
buffer when it calls next_buffer. Sure, there is always only one
buffer in flight, but I cannot see why this would lead to the numbers
you are reporting here.
> Can anyone else think why nested would sometimes be faster than not nested?
> - Daniel
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
More information about the Mir-devel