X-Git-Url: https://git.cworth.org/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fexa%2Fcorrected_rectangles.mdwn;h=d58696de9ba6a40226da0568829bacb92d60cd36;hb=5c014fe14d7a114dc525711d3236feb10f27177f;hp=d57462f81e8d8306354a09c844fb506008f07b0c;hpb=0ba56140ea9fea1c4838e9e0a0ec13a480113f70;p=cworth.org diff --git a/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn b/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn index d57462f..d58696d 100644 --- a/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn +++ b/src/exa/corrected_rectangles.mdwn @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ -[[meta title="Correcting bugs in the rectangles test"]] +[[!meta title="Correcting bugs in the rectangles test"]] -[[tag cairo exa performance xorg]] +[[!tag cairo exa performance xorg]] -Owen Taylor was kind enough to take a close look at my [[recent +Owen Taylor was kind enough to take a close look at my [[!recent post|understanding_rectangles]] comparing the performance of EXA and NoAccel rectangle fills on an r100. He was also careful enough to notice that the results looked really fishy. @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ returning consistent numbers from one run to the next, though. And the results do appear to have the correct trend as can be seen from these two graphs showing the measured fill rates: -[[img fill-rates-cairo-perf.png]] +[[!img fill-rates-cairo-perf.png]] -[[img fill-rates-x11perf.png]] +[[!img fill-rates-x11perf.png]] But again, notice from the Y-axis values of the cairo-perf plot that the numbers are just plain too large to be believed. @@ -112,6 +112,6 @@ XRenderFillRectangles changed to XFillRectangles and saw no difference.) Anybody have any ideas what might be going on here? Email me at - or the xorg list at , + or the xorg list at , ([subscription required](http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg) of course).