From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antonino Daplas Subject: Re: RFC: Optimizing putcs() Date: 07 Aug 2002 08:17:44 +0800 Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1028679284.554.37.camel@daplas> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from [203.167.79.9] (helo=willow.compass.com.ph) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17cES6-0001uO-00 for ; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:13:26 -0700 Received: from AP-203.167.30.66.sysads.com (cwd66.compass.com.ph [203.167.30.66]) by willow.compass.com.ph (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA97947 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:13:22 +0800 (PHT) (envelope-from adaplas@pol.net) In-Reply-To: Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: fbdev On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 04:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Just for reference, did you run this benchmark on 2.4.x as well? > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > Sort of. The functions in fbcon-cfb*.c are already very fast, because fbcon and character drawing are tightly integrated together, and fbcon_cfb8_putcs() is very, very efficient, processing 4 bits per iteration, instead of 1. I'm getting numbers like this: real 0m2.098s user 0m0.000s sys 0m2.070s which was faster(!) than my hardware implementation of putcs, and 5x faster than 2.5. Since I'm using an i810 with Video in System RAM, direct framebuffer access does not carry much overhead. I just have to beat fbcon-cfb8, so I thought of placing text data in offscreen graphics memory to take full advantage of hardware blitting. At high bit depths (32 bpp), 2.5 with an offscreen buffer is as fast as 2.4. Tony ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf