From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Petr Vandrovec" Subject: Re: 2.5 atyfb on Sparc question Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:51:08 +0200 Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1730A970D4F@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from zikova.cvut.cz ([147.32.235.100]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17csNu-0004Bf-00 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:51:46 -0700 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: James Simmons Cc: bruce.holzrichter@monster.com, Linux Fbdev development list On 8 Aug 02 at 11:32, James Simmons wrote: > > On 8 Aug 02 at 11:16, James Simmons wrote: > > > > I also hope that performance problems will be solved > > > > before we are > > > > forced to not use putcs. > > > > > > It will be :-) I need to one align the data. Second I > > > plan to implement the patch recently posted here. > > > > Patch still showed about 100% slowdown against 2.4.x, if I interpreted > > yesterday's table correctly. It is better than 1000% slowdown, but still... > > I could believe a slow down of 2x but 1000 I don't think so. Message from Antonio Daplas (http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/9276/0/9249087/) says: 2.5 old (with offscreen buffers) 10.708 2.5 new 4.378 2.4 2.098 His first message (http://www.geocrawler.com/lists/3/SourceForge/9276/25/9237029/) listed 13.586 for old 2.5 code. So you are right, old code was not 1000% slowdown, only 500%. But main problem is not speed of old code, but speed of new code. And if numbers are right, new code is still 100% slower than 2.4.x code was. Petr Vandrovec ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf