Originally posted by MrCooper
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Has Open-Source Driver For HD 8000 Series
Collapse
X
-
-
Exactly, there is no way to completely avoid tearing without some form of compositing. So 'no tearing' and 'no compositing' are conflicting requirements.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostMaking a tear-free driver that works without a compositor involves doing pretty much the same thing -- either implementing what amounts to triple buffer support (one being drawn, one being displayed, and one waiting for the next flip) or delaying drawing operations until an appropriate window in the display refresh cycle. Either way you're getting lag, the only question is whether you get "straight" lag or hide composition in the lag that pretty much has to happen anyways.
The lag of a mem copy should nearly always be greater than that of waiting for the scan line to pass.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostWithout a compositor, when an app draws, it goes straight up the pipeline. With a compositor, the app's window contents go up to the compositor, which then decides whether to send it along or to do some effect with it. This is the definition of a compositor, pretty much. Do you not agree that it's extra lag when one does not need the effects? Purely as an approach, not involving X, wayland or anything else in the question at hand.
Leave a comment:
-
@curaga
I guess I went too far. Under X, indeed, compositing would bring more lag(at least most of the time).
My point was that is more of an X limitation than a compositing one though. Compositing can ba faster with a good implementation. It's not exactly an extra layer on top, you don't take into account a good deal of things simplying it like that cause it's quite different and leverages the GPU better(I'd rather it doesn't sit around when I have it) and even "solves" some issues that don't have to do with effects, like better control over syncing(and tearing).
But anyways, (in regards to the initial comment, to write something more constructive too) a wm like xfwm4 could likely help, which can do compositing and be pretty lightweight and fast still. I haven't extensively tested it, but I tried it(a few weeks ago was last time) and I recall it doesn't have any effects by default and shouldn't lag more than a stacking window manager(many wm's can have effects disabled though, but this one should be faster). Maybe it would be better in regards to tearing for now. You are forced to you a compositor, but it shouldn't be too bad.
I'm personally "forced" to use much worse stuff to have a decent linux experience.
Leave a comment:
-
@Rigaldo
Please note I was not comparing X to wayland - I was comparing apples with apples, ie compositor on X vs no compositor on X.
Wayland likely does outperform non-composited X, but that does not mean compositing is not an extra layer. But since wayland forces compositing, we have no way to compare a compositing wayland and a non-compositing wayland.
But back to the point.
Without a compositor, when an app draws, it goes straight up the pipeline. With a compositor, the app's window contents go up to the compositor, which then decides whether to send it along or to do some effect with it. This is the definition of a compositor, pretty much. Do you not agree that it's extra lag when one does not need the effects? Purely as an approach, not involving X, wayland or anything else in the question at hand.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostIt's an unnecessary layer, therefore always causing a lag of at least one frame compared to not using one.
Being a programmer I don't like unnecessary layers in general - being sensitive to latency I don't like unneeded delays.
To put it in another way: an unnecessary layer that has only downsides to me, I have no use for wobbly windows, shadows, or any other effect of the week.
If it is delays you are concerned of, you should in fact welcome Wayland, since it takes as many of those away as possible. My limited testing shows that Wayland with compositing is actually faster(not talking about frames per second) and more responsive than a wm without compositing under Xorg.
Also Vsync and tearing seem to be much better in Wayland. Practically no tearing with much less overhead.
Because Xorg is not good at all at compositing, doesn't mean that compositing is bad in any way. And Wayland can still run fine with software rendering. Besides, if we were to not add any "layers" that we don't need, every program would be an OS too. In the case of Wayland you practically have less layers. Now, if what concerns you is not that, but something like the name of Wayland or whatever, that another issue. Wayland is Xorg developers correcting their mistakes basically.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostThat's what the console is for.
me: forcing people to a compositor is no solution
you: here's a compositor
me: you lack reading comprehension
you: use the console
How the heck did step 4 follow from step 3?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ChrisXY View PostWhat's the problem with a compositor? Even with X11 the benchmarks for a good driver like the open source radeon driver generally show no drop in any performance...
Being a programmer I don't like unnecessary layers in general - being sensitive to latency I don't like unneeded delays.
To put it in another way: an unnecessary layer that has only downsides to me, I have no use for wobbly windows, shadows, or any other effect of the week.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: