X is a bit slow

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Thu Apr 22 07:02:38 PDT 2004

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Christian H. Kuhn wrote:

> Hi Ken,
> & dixit Ken Moffat:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Christian H. Kuhn wrote:
> >  So, it's just the dri that you're worried about.
> >
> >  (i) debian is using XFree-4.really.old, or -4.fairly.old if you're
> > lucky.
> >
> It's 4.2.1-16.
> >  I assume you've already looked through the X log to make sure it isn't
> > moaning about anything, and checked glxinfo to confirm that dri is on.
> So it is.


> > Did you use an XF86Config from debian, or did you roll your own ?  If
> > you took it from debian, did you take the -4 version (debian seems to
> > generate both, dunno if they're identical) ?
> Kind of both. I made a new XF86Config-4, according to the book. Then i
> changed some entries, p.e. for the mouse. Still, there are differences
> in the Module section.
> LFS:
>         Load  "extmod"
>         Load  "glx"
>         Load  "dri"
>         Load  "dbe"
>         Load  "record"
>         Load  "xtrap"
>         Load  "speedo"
>         Load  "type1"
>         Load  "freetype"
> Debian:
>         Load    "GLcore"

 Seems to get mentioned a lot on google, but I couldn't see anything
definitive about what it does.  I don't have this either, and we seem to
manage without it (dri is on).  I suppose you could always try adding it
to prove the point one way or the other.

>         Load    "bitmap"
>         Load    "dbe"
>         Load    "ddc"
>         Load    "dri"
>         Load    "extmod"
>         Load    "freetype"
>         Load    "glx"
>         Load    "int10"
>         Load    "record"
>         Load    "speedo"
>         Load    "type1"
>         Load    "vbe"
> >  (ii) drm modules are compiled with the same compiler you used for the
> > kernel.
> All compiled with 2.95.3.
> > You will rightly tell me that you don't want to recompile X as well.
> It's not me who compiles it but the compiler, and it can be done while i
> sleep. In fact, i have recompiled X several times the last days, for
> reasons i mentioned in another thread.

 Yeah.  I've tried building X.org-6.7.0 seven or eight times last week
trying to identify why fontconfig segfaults.  I don't lightly recommend
it to other people :)

> > In my opinion, the BLFS book hasn't kept up with dri - for almost
> > everybody, the dri modules in recent 2.4 kernels should be up to date
> > enough to just build them.  The book's instructions are a hangover from
> > when the kernel couldn't interface to anything newer than X-4.2.
> I'm not sure that i understand what you are talking about. Does it mean
> that the DRI kernel modules are overwritten with those from X? So should
> i NOT copy the X DRI modules, or better, try which work faster?
> Kind regards,
> Chris

 /if/ you build the kernel's dri modules and then copy X's modules over
the top of them as the BLFS book does, then yes, they are overwritten.
Back in the days of the 2.4.22 kernel or thereabouts, that was the only
way because the 2.4 tree was well out of date and produced modules
reporting too old a version of the dri protocol.

 With a recent 2.4 kernel, the dri stuff is much more up to date. With a
2.6 kernel you can't copy radeon.o or whatever to the modules directory
and expect it to work, but at least it won't overwrite the .ko module.

 If you want to run speed tests on the kernel's own module compared to
the XFree version, please let us know the results (plus which versions
of X and the kernel, and which driver it is).

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the blfs-support mailing list