FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-19-2011, 01:19 PM
Daniel Tihelka
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Tihelka <dtihelka@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hallo* Mick.

> Thank you very much - it helped. Removing 'video=vesafb:ywrap,mtrr:3

> vga=792'

> from kernel boot options, and framebuffer-related stuff in kernel config,

> especially:

>

> # CONFIG_FB_DDC is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_BACKLIGHT is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_MODE_HELPERS is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_TILEBLITTING is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_VESA is not set

> # CONFIG_FB_RADEON is not set

> # CONFIG_DISPLAY_SUPPORT is not set

> # CONFIG_VGACON_SOFT_SCROLLBACK is not set

> # CONFIG_FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE_DETECT_PRIMARY is not set

>

> (not all the options were removed by hand, it is just diff of the configs,

> and

> maybe, some of them could be enabled without causing problems).

>

> Now, there are much more 'drm'-related messages in 'dmesg', and also X.org

> uses the drm correctly. The 'glxinfo' returns:

> ...

> OpenGL vendor string: X.Org R300 Project

> OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on RV370

> OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 7.9

> OpenGL shading language version string: 1.20

> ...

>

> It looks good now. Thank you very much for your advice again.

> Dan

>

> On Sunday 16 January 2011 16:52:30 Mick wrote:

>> On Sunday 16 January 2011 15:18:50 Daniel Tihelka wrote:

>> > And the kernel seems to use them (when started with boot options

>>

>> > 'video=vesafb:ywrap,mtrr:3 vga=792'):

>> Dan, try removing uvesa/vesa/radeon/etc. framebuffer modules from your

>> kernel and the above line too from grub when you boot and see if your KMS

>> radeon driver can now work on its own.

>



Daniel,

* I'm seeing the same problem here and trying to follow my way

through your kernel config changes. I don't think I have it yet on

this box as I'm seeing a message about rendering being disabled in

Xorg.log.0



c2stable ~ # cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log | grep render

[ * *29.017] (WW) RADEON(0): Direct rendering disabled

c2stable ~ #



even though glxinfo says it's enabled:



c2stable ~ # glxinfo | grep render

direct rendering: Yes

OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on softpipe

* *GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_conditional_render, GL_NV_light_max_exponent,

c2stable ~ #


I have the following now:

$cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log | grep render
[*** 28.531] (II) RADEON(0): Direct rendering enabled

$ glxinfo | grep render
direct rendering: Yes
OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on RV370

*** GL_NV_blend_square, GL_NV_conditional_render, GL_NV_light_max_exponent,

The key issue was to exclude "classic" framebuffer drivers from the kernel. Since that, everything started to work automatically.

*
* Anyway, I'm sure I'll figure it out but I'm curious how you measure

that it's working up to it's potential. I'm getting less than 200FPS

in glxgears. I get >2500 on a cheaper nvidia card so I'm certain this

Radeon 300 can do better.



* What do you see in glxgears?


I see this:
Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.* The framerate should be
approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.532 FPS
299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.634 FPS

301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.037 FPS
288 frames in 5.1 seconds = 56.852 FPS
212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 42.366 FPS* <-- window maximized from here
222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 44.352 FPS
216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 43.021 FPS

205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 40.716 FPS

It is not so much and I don't know if it is the top performance of the gallium driver (btw, I really believe it has large potential), or if it could be improved further more (e.g. by compilling lvm into it), but it is not critical for me now.

Dan
 
Old 01-19-2011, 01:28 PM
Mark Knecht
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Daniel Tihelka <dtihelka@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> * What do you see in glxgears?
>>
> I see this:
> Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.* The framerate should be
> approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.


I get this same message on my Intel graphics machine, and I get the
same frame rates which is what the message says...

> 273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.532 FPS
> 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.634 FPS
> 301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.037 FPS
> 288 frames in 5.1 seconds = 56.852 FPS
> 212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 42.366 FPS* <-- window maximized from here
> 222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 44.352 FPS
> 216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 43.021 FPS
> 205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 40.716 FPS
>
> It is not so much and I don't know if it is the top performance of the
> gallium driver (btw, I really believe it has large potential), or if it
> could be improved further more (e.g. by compilling lvm into it), but it is
> not critical for me now.
> Dan
>

My ATI doesn't have the 'Running synchronized to the vertical refresh'
message. It does about 200FPS. On my wife's box I used the closed
source nvidia driver and get about 2500 FPS.

- Mark
 
Old 01-19-2011, 02:45 PM
Mick
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On 19 January 2011 14:28, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Daniel Tihelka <dtihelka@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> * What do you see in glxgears?
>>>
>> I see this:
>> Running synchronized to the vertical refresh.* The framerate should be
>> approximately the same as the monitor refresh rate.
>
>
> I get this same message on my Intel graphics machine, and I get the
> same frame rates which is what the message says...
>
>> 273 frames in 5.0 seconds = 54.532 FPS
>> 299 frames in 5.0 seconds = 59.634 FPS
>> 301 frames in 5.0 seconds = 60.037 FPS
>> 288 frames in 5.1 seconds = 56.852 FPS
>> 212 frames in 5.0 seconds = 42.366 FPS* <-- window maximized from here
>> 222 frames in 5.0 seconds = 44.352 FPS
>> 216 frames in 5.0 seconds = 43.021 FPS
>> 205 frames in 5.0 seconds = 40.716 FPS
>>
>> It is not so much and I don't know if it is the top performance of the
>> gallium driver (btw, I really believe it has large potential), or if it
>> could be improved further more (e.g. by compilling lvm into it), but it is
>> not critical for me now.
>> Dan
>>
>
> My ATI doesn't have the 'Running synchronized to the vertical refresh'
> message. It does about 200FPS. On my wife's box I used the closed
> source nvidia driver and get about 2500 FPS.

I have seen some seriously spurious results from glxgears over the
years. I recall reading somewhere that if your fps is less that 100,
it may be caused by your screen refresh rate being out of keel with
your card or something like that. glxgears is good for one thing -
showing you by means of a GUI that 3D graphics work on your set up.

http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark

--
Regards,
Mick
 
Old 01-19-2011, 03:05 PM
Mark Knecht
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I have seen some seriously spurious results from glxgears over the
> years. *I recall reading somewhere that if your fps is less that 100,
> it may be caused by your screen refresh rate being out of keel with
> your card or something like that. *glxgears is good for one thing -
> showing you by means of a GUI that 3D graphics work on your set up.
>
> *http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>
>

I COMPLETELY agree! However I know of no other graphics benchmarking
app that's likely to be on a list member's machine and is easy to run.

I'd be really interested in a common Gentoo way of measuring graphics
performance but I don't know of one. We need a Wiki with some results
so people know if they are working correctly or not. My Intel i5-661
box used to get 950FPS. No it gets 60FPS. I didn't intentionally
change anything but it ain't working like it used to.

You're link is technically better than mine, but mine makes me laugh more. ;-)

http://isglxgearsabenchmark.com/

Cheers,
Mark
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:58 PM
Mick
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On Wednesday 19 January 2011 16:05:11 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > I have seen some seriously spurious results from glxgears over the
> > years. I recall reading somewhere that if your fps is less that 100,
> > it may be caused by your screen refresh rate being out of keel with
> > your card or something like that. glxgears is good for one thing -
> > showing you by means of a GUI that 3D graphics work on your set up.
> >
> > http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Mick
>
> I COMPLETELY agree! However I know of no other graphics benchmarking
> app that's likely to be on a list member's machine and is easy to run.
>
> I'd be really interested in a common Gentoo way of measuring graphics
> performance but I don't know of one.

I have used gtkperf when I was benchmarking different settings on a box:

$ eix -l gtkperf
* app-benchmarks/gtkperf
Available versions:
(~) 0.40 "~amd64 ~ppc ~x86" [nls]
Homepage: http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/
Description: Application designed to test GTK+ performance

Alternatively, most people who are interested in gaming use demos from the
games they play.
--
Regards,
Mick
 
Old 01-20-2011, 03:55 PM
Mark Knecht
 
Default No HW acceleraton on radeon Mobility X300 with linux-2.6.36-r5, mesa-7.9, xorg-server-1.9.2 and video-ati-6.13.2

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 January 2011 16:05:11 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> > I have seen some seriously spurious results from glxgears over the
>> > years. *I recall reading somewhere that if your fps is less that 100,
>> > it may be caused by your screen refresh rate being out of keel with
>> > your card or something like that. *glxgears is good for one thing -
>> > showing you by means of a GUI that 3D graphics work on your set up.
>> >
>> > *http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Glxgears_is_not_a_Benchmark
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Mick
>>
>> I COMPLETELY agree! However I know of no other graphics benchmarking
>> app that's likely to be on a list member's machine and is easy to run.
>>
>> I'd be really interested in a common Gentoo way of measuring graphics
>> performance but I don't know of one.
>
> I have used gtkperf when I was benchmarking different settings on a box:
>
> $ eix -l gtkperf
> * app-benchmarks/gtkperf
> * * Available versions:
> * * * * * * * *(~) * * 0.40 "~amd64 ~ppc ~x86" [nls]
> * * Homepage: * * * * * *http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/
> * * Description: * * * * Application designed to test GTK+ performance
>
> Alternatively, most people who are interested in gaming use demos from the
> games they play.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>

Hey Mick,
I updated the the git version of the xf86-video-ati driver this
morning, but am still using all the stable versions of everything
else. I tried gtkperf. Not satifying at all in terms of demonstrating
anything with 3d performance.

We need a better benchmark! I'm going to go look around a bit for
something more fun...

Cheers,
Mark
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org