On Monday 08 January 2007 6:36 am, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Erik van Zijst wrote:
> > Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> At some point (years ago) there was even an argument on some mailiing
> >> list (xfree86-devel ?) about whether Xserver should support shared
> >> memory as unix socket was "fast enough" - with the other side arguing
> >> that when you pass megabyte images around (as in DVD playback) there is
> >> non-negligible overhead.
> >
> > We're currently doing performance tests with the RServe-approach where
> > we measure the actual evaluation time of a function. I'm interested in
> > the evaluation-time versus overhead ratio. Loopback TCP might work as
> > long as this ratio is sufficiently high.
>
> Slightly off-topic, Vladimir sounded as if there was any argument of
> supporting shared memory in X... AFAIK, the shared memory extension
> *is* part of Xorg!
>
> $ grep 'MIT-SHM' /var/log/Xorg.0.log
> (II) Initializing built-in extension MIT-SHM
It is - and it was when the discussion happened (several years ago).
The issue was whether to introduce shared memory support for Xv extension.
(and yes, it was introduced..)
best
Vladimir Dergachev
>
> - the shared memory extension is also crucial for
> client-side font-rendering (xft/freetype) a.k.a. all those
> nicely anti-aliased texts in firefox and openoffice, besides
> DVD playbacks.
>
> HTL
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
