From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LaAcF-0004Vw-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:07 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LaAcD-0004VT-Tz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:07 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46579 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LaAcD-0004VI-P3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:05 -0500 Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.164]:63454 helo=akado.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LaAcD-0005ne-DC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:05 -0500 Received: from [10.0.66.9] ([10.0.66.9] verified) by fe01-cgp.akado.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTP id 58818344 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:14:28 +0300 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:14:12 +0300 (MSK) From: malc Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Qemu 2D performance plunges below acceptable levels In-Reply-To: <499BFB32.90806@eu.citrix.com> Message-ID: References: <7fac565a0902150510y1fb01c6awd1dcc3b6e7b8232d@mail.gmail.com> <7fac565a0902150911u1ed66ef0gc55663d723c76ae4@mail.gmail.com> <4999407C.5040009@eu.citrix.com> <49995266.3050707@redhat.com> <4999913F.3040108@eu.citrix.com> <499AF87C.9090703@redhat.com> <499B0965.9020007@eu.citrix.com> <7fac565a0902180046r1c0070bdrbf0af9511493c22b@mail.gmail.com> <499BE774.2070707@eu.citrix.com> <499BFB32.90806@eu.citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > malc wrote: > > >> As usual two good tests are to check the vnc case and a guest in 32bpp too. > > > > This doesn't happen on the very same machine running very same guest but > > host OS being Linux. > > > > > > Uhm.. are you using one of those infamous 20-inch iMac with a resolution > of 6 bits per pixel? > That would explain the slow down. > Please try this patch and let me know if it makes a difference: > It doesn't. FWIW not quite "value preserving" operation of removing call to SDL_UpdateRect from sdl_update and putting SDL_Flip into sdl_refresh does. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru