Re: nouveau slower than nv and vesa on quadro 135M

[Helge Hafting <helge.hafting-i5bjtSbraLbLX0NG8FE4ug@public.gmane.org>]

Maarten Maathuis wrote:

> The 1st and the 2nd problem are different. Let's focus on the first initially.
> 
ok.
> I think for a callgraph you need to specify a depth, --callgraph=5 for
> example, please experiment with that to see if you can actually see
> who is calling those pixman functions (for the navit case). Currently
> it just points to itself which is a (rather poor) way of showing that
> it doesn't know.
> 
I have no luck with this. I started out with --callgraph=6, like the 
example in the wiki.  I tried increasing to 10 and then to 16, that 
didn't seem to help.  There is very little documentation for this 
option, such as what numbers are supported.
I tried --callgraph=25, and then opreport -c gave me error messages only.

> If you could attach an xorg log, that would allow me to check if
> things are as i expect them to be.

Here are files from my attempts with --callgraph=16
http://www.aitel.hist.no/~helgehaf/oprofile/navit5/opreport-c
http://www.aitel.hist.no/~helgehaf/oprofile/navit5/opreport-l
http://www.aitel.hist.no/~helgehaf/oprofile/navit5/Xorg.0.log

Many calls is not unexpected. A city map has lots of roads, divided into
hundreds and hundreds of straight line segments. These are typically 
painted twice with slightly different width, so as to get a road with 
edges. There are also a lot of filled polygons (buildings, parks, river,...)

Painting a big map quickly is sometimes too much for weak processors 
like a phone with gps. It is normally not a problem for a PC, even
with unaccelerated framebuffer graphics.

Helge Hafting