From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LaYcW-0000f6-9T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:53:00 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LaYcV-0000es-Nk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:53:00 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46157 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LaYcV-0000eo-BD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:52:59 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:35111)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LaYcU-0007kA-NQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:52:58 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LaYcT-0006U4-E1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:52:57 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Qemu 2D performance plunges below acceptable
	levels
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:52:54 +0000
References: <7fac565a0902150510y1fb01c6awd1dcc3b6e7b8232d@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0902191811090.2143@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<499EDC54.3020508@eu.citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <499EDC54.3020508@eu.citrix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200902201652.55386.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>

>      SDL_BlitSurface(guest_screen, &rec, real_screen, &rec);
> -    SDL_UpdateRect(real_screen, x, y, w, h);
> +    SDL_UpdateRects(real_screen, 1, &rec);

Have you actually tried this? I'd be amazed and dismayed if it made any 
difference. I can believe that SDL_UpdateRects is better that *multiple* 
calls to SDL_UpdateRect. However I see absolutely no justification for this 
change.

Paul