X-Git-Url: https://git.cworth.org/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=src%2Fexa%2Fwhat_exa_gets_right.mdwn;h=9322d8c3af76d361d0d27744deeaf699865413c2;hb=5c014fe14d7a114dc525711d3236feb10f27177f;hp=29d705bbfb89a844d0f396383d955cd96bec9126;hpb=5a9b973a016706fd9cbe37c3b05ed3f00d1e900f;p=cworth.org

diff --git a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
index 29d705b..9322d8c 100644
--- a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
+++ b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-[[meta title="What EXA gets right already"]]
+[[!meta title="What EXA gets right already"]]
 
-[[tag exa performance xorg]]
+[[!tag exa performance xorg]]
 
 I've been writing various posts about [[EXA|tag/exa]] for a couple of
 months now. And for the most part, they've been fairly negative,
@@ -26,8 +26,9 @@ glyph rendering).
 So, briefly here, I want to mention a couple of things that EXA is
 doing a fine job with. The first is the big reason why you don't want
 to run an X server with NoAccel: scrolling will hurt very badly. Take
-a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a
-rectangle of various sizes.
+a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a rectangle of
+various sizes. These results are from "x11perf -copywinwinX" and
+multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation.
 
 [All tests here are with very recent checkouts of xserver, mesa, and
 xf86-video-intel. Tests are run on an Intel Core 2 CPU @ 2.13GHz with
@@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ this test, but not significantly.
 Second, let's look at another common operation, filling solid
 rectangles. This is an essential step in almost any rending, (for
 clearing to the background color), as well as for actually rendering
-some content.
+some content. These results are from "x11perf -rectX", again
+multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation.
 
 [[rectangle-fill.png]]