Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/released'

Conflicts:
	fontconfig/.gitignore
	libX11/src/ConvSel.c
	libX11/src/CrGlCur.c
	libX11/src/CrWindow.c
	libX11/src/GetDflt.c
	libX11/src/Window.c
	libX11/src/xlibi18n/XimProto.h
	libX11/src/xlibi18n/lcDynamic.c
	libxcb/src/.gitignore
	libxcb/src/xcb_ext.c
	libxcb/src/xcb_xid.c
	mesalib/src/glsl/.gitignore
	mesalib/src/glsl/glcpp/.gitignore
	mesalib/src/mapi/glapi/gen/glX_API.xml
	mesalib/src/mapi/glapi/glapi_getproc.c
	mesalib/src/mesa/main/.gitignore
	mesalib/src/mesa/main/syncobj.c
	mesalib/src/mesa/program/.gitignore
	xkbcomp/listing.c
	xkbcomp/xkbpath.c
	xorg-server/.gitignore
	xorg-server/Xext/xvmain.c
	xorg-server/dix/dispatch.c
	xorg-server/hw/xwin/glx/winpriv.h
	xorg-server/hw/xwin/winprefsyacc.y
	xorg-server/hw/xwin/winscrinit.c
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/bin/ml1_s.sh
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/bin/ml1v1_s.sh
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/bin/ml1v_s.sh
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/bin/ml_s.sh
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/bin/mlv_s.sh
	xorg-server/xkeyboard-config/rules/compat/.gitignore

1 files changed, 204 insertions, 204 deletions

diff --git a/xorg-server/doc/smartsched b/xorg-server/doc/smartsched
index 057a759fd..466408431 100644
--- a/xorg-server/doc/smartsched
+++ b/xorg-server/doc/smartsched
@@ -1,204 +1,204 @@
-			Client Scheduling in X
-			    Keith Packard
-			       SuSE
-			     10/28/99
-
-History:
-
-Since the original X server was written at Digital in 1987, the OS and DIX
-layers shared responsibility for scheduling the order to service
-client requests.  The original design was simplistic; under the maximum
-first make it work, then make it work well, this was a good idea.  Now 
-that we have a bit more experience with X applications, it's time to
-rethink the design.
-
-The basic dispatch loop in DIX looks like:
-
-	for (;;)
-	{
-		nready = WaitForSomething (...);
-		while (nready--)
-		{
-			isItTimeToYield = FALSE;
-			while (!isItTimeToYield)
-			{
-				if (!ReadRequestFromClient (...))
-					break;
-				(execute request);
-			}
-		}
-	}
-
-WaitForSomething looks like:
-
-	for (;;)
-		if (ANYSET (ClientsWithInput))
-			return popcount (ClientsWithInput);
-		select (...)
-		compute clientsReadable from select result;
-		return popcount (clientsReadable)
-	}
-
-ReadRequestFromClient looks like:
-
-	if (!fullRequestQueued)
-	{
-		read ();
-		if (!fullRequestQueued)
-		{
-			remove from ClientsWithInput;
-			timesThisConnection = 0;
-			return 0;
-		}
-	}
-	if (twoFullRequestsQueued)
-		add to ClientsWithInput;
-
-	if (++timesThisConnection >= 10)
-	{
-		isItTimeToYield = TRUE;
-		timesThisConnection = 0;
-	}
-	return 1;
-
-Here's what happens in this code:
-
-With a single client executing a stream of requests:
-
-	A client sends a packet of requests to the server.
-
-	WaitForSomething wakes up from select and returns that client
-	to Dispatch
-
-	Dispatch calls ReadRequestFromClient which reads a buffer (4K)
-	full of requests from the client
-
-	The server executes requests from this buffer until it emptys,
-	in two stages -- 10 requests at a time are executed in the
-	inner Dispatch loop, a buffer full of requests are executed
-	because WaitForSomething immediately returns if any clients
-	have complete requests pending in their input queues.
-
-	When the buffer finally emptys, the next call to ReadRequest
-	FromClient will return zero and Dispatch will go back to
-	WaitForSomething; now that the client has no requests pending,
-	WaitForSomething will block in select again.  If the client
-	is active, this select will immediately return that client
-	as ready to read.
-
-With multiple clients sending streams of requests, the sequence
-of operations is similar, except that ReadRequestFromClient will
-set isItTimeToYield after each 10 requests executed causing the
-server to round-robin among the clients with available requests.
-
-It's important to realize here that any complete requests which have been
-read from clients will be executed before the server will use select again
-to discover input from other clients.  A single busy client can easily
-monopolize the X server.
-
-So, the X server doesn't share well with clients which are more interactive
-in nature.
-
-The X server executes at most a buffer full of requests before again heading
-into select; ReadRequestFromClient causes the server to yield when the
-client request buffer doesn't contain a complete request.  When
-that buffer is executed quickly, the server spends a lot of time
-in select discovering that the same client again has input ready.  Thus
-the server also runs busy clients less efficiently than is would be
-possible.
-
-What to do.
-
-There are several things evident from the above discussion:
-
- 1	The server has a poor metric for deciding how much work it
-	should do at one time on behalf of a particular client.
-
- 2	The server doesn't call select often enough to detect less
- 	aggressive clients in the face of busy clients, especially
-	when those clients are executing slow requests.
-
- 3	The server calls select too often when executing fast requests.
-
- 4	Some priority scheme is needed to keep interactive clients
- 	responding to the user.
-
-And, there are some assumptions about how X applications work:
-
- 1	Each X request is executed relatively quickly; a request-granularity
- 	is good enough for interactive response almost all of the time.
-
- 2	X applications receiving mouse/keyboard events are likely to
- 	warrant additional attention from the X server.
-
-Instead of a request-count metric for work, a time-based metric should be
-used.  The server should select a reasonable time slice for each client
-and execute requests for the entire timeslice before yielding to
-another client.
-
-Instead of returning immediately from WaitForSomething if clients have
-complete requests queued, the server should go through select each
-time and gather as many ready clients as possible.  This involves
-polling instead of blocking and adding the ClientsWithInput to
-clientsReadable after the select returns.
-
-Instead of yielding when the request buffer is empty for a particular
-client, leave the yielding to the upper level scheduling and allow
-the server to try and read again from the socket.  If the client
-is busy, another buffer full of requests will already be waiting
-to be delivered thus avoiding the call through select and the
-additional overhead in WaitForSomething.
-
-Finally, the dispatch loop should not simply execute requests from the
-first available client, instead each client should be prioritized with
-busy clients penalized and clients receiving user events praised.
-
-How it's done:
-
-Polling the current time of day from the OS is too expensive to
-be done at each request boundary, so instead an interval timer is
-set allowing the server to track time changes by counting invocations
-of the related signal handler.  Instead of using the wall time for
-this purpose, the process CPU time is used instead.  This serves
-two purposes -- first, it allows the server to consume no CPU cycles
-when idle, second it avoids conflicts with SIGALRM usage in other
-parts of the server code.  It's not without problems though; other
-CPU intensive processes on the same machine can reduce interactive
-response time within the X server.  The dispatch loop can now
-calculate an approximate time value using the number of signals
-received.  The granularity of the timer sets the scheduling jitter,
-at 20ms it's only occasionally noticeable.
-
-The changes to WaitForSomething and ReadRequestFromClient are
-straightforward, adjusting when select is called and avoiding
-setting isItTimeToYield too often.
-
-The dispatch loop changes are more extensive, now instead of
-executing requests from all available clients, a single client
-is chosen after each call to WaitForSomething, requests are
-executed for that client and WaitForSomething is called again.
-
-Each client is assigned a priority, the dispatch loop chooses the
-client with the highest priority to execute.  Priorities are
-updated in three ways:
-
- 1.	Clients which consume their entire slice are penalized
- 	by having their priority reduced by one until they
-	reach some minimum value.
-
- 2.	Clients which have executed no requests for some time
- 	are praised by having their priority raised until they
-	return to normal priority.
-
- 3.	Clients which receive user input are praised by having
- 	their priority rased until they reach some maximal
-	value, above normal priority.
-
-The effect of these changes is to both improve interactive application
-response and benchmark numbers at the same time.
-
-
-
-
-
-$XFree86: $
+			Client Scheduling in X

+			    Keith Packard

+			       SuSE

+			     10/28/99

+

+History:

+

+Since the original X server was written at Digital in 1987, the OS and DIX

+layers shared responsibility for scheduling the order to service

+client requests.  The original design was simplistic; under the maximum

+first make it work, then make it work well, this was a good idea.  Now 

+that we have a bit more experience with X applications, it's time to

+rethink the design.

+

+The basic dispatch loop in DIX looks like:

+

+	for (;;)

+	{

+		nready = WaitForSomething (...);

+		while (nready--)

+		{

+			isItTimeToYield = FALSE;

+			while (!isItTimeToYield)

+			{

+				if (!ReadRequestFromClient (...))

+					break;

+				(execute request);

+			}

+		}

+	}

+

+WaitForSomething looks like:

+

+	for (;;)

+		if (ANYSET (ClientsWithInput))

+			return popcount (ClientsWithInput);

+		select (...)

+		compute clientsReadable from select result;

+		return popcount (clientsReadable)

+	}

+

+ReadRequestFromClient looks like:

+

+	if (!fullRequestQueued)

+	{

+		read ();

+		if (!fullRequestQueued)

+		{

+			remove from ClientsWithInput;

+			timesThisConnection = 0;

+			return 0;

+		}

+	}

+	if (twoFullRequestsQueued)

+		add to ClientsWithInput;

+

+	if (++timesThisConnection >= 10)

+	{

+		isItTimeToYield = TRUE;

+		timesThisConnection = 0;

+	}

+	return 1;

+

+Here's what happens in this code:

+

+With a single client executing a stream of requests:

+

+	A client sends a packet of requests to the server.

+

+	WaitForSomething wakes up from select and returns that client

+	to Dispatch

+

+	Dispatch calls ReadRequestFromClient which reads a buffer (4K)

+	full of requests from the client

+

+	The server executes requests from this buffer until it emptys,

+	in two stages -- 10 requests at a time are executed in the

+	inner Dispatch loop, a buffer full of requests are executed

+	because WaitForSomething immediately returns if any clients

+	have complete requests pending in their input queues.

+

+	When the buffer finally emptys, the next call to ReadRequest

+	FromClient will return zero and Dispatch will go back to

+	WaitForSomething; now that the client has no requests pending,

+	WaitForSomething will block in select again.  If the client

+	is active, this select will immediately return that client

+	as ready to read.

+

+With multiple clients sending streams of requests, the sequence

+of operations is similar, except that ReadRequestFromClient will

+set isItTimeToYield after each 10 requests executed causing the

+server to round-robin among the clients with available requests.

+

+It's important to realize here that any complete requests which have been

+read from clients will be executed before the server will use select again

+to discover input from other clients.  A single busy client can easily

+monopolize the X server.

+

+So, the X server doesn't share well with clients which are more interactive

+in nature.

+

+The X server executes at most a buffer full of requests before again heading

+into select; ReadRequestFromClient causes the server to yield when the

+client request buffer doesn't contain a complete request.  When

+that buffer is executed quickly, the server spends a lot of time

+in select discovering that the same client again has input ready.  Thus

+the server also runs busy clients less efficiently than is would be

+possible.

+

+What to do.

+

+There are several things evident from the above discussion:

+

+ 1	The server has a poor metric for deciding how much work it

+	should do at one time on behalf of a particular client.

+

+ 2	The server doesn't call select often enough to detect less

+ 	aggressive clients in the face of busy clients, especially

+	when those clients are executing slow requests.

+

+ 3	The server calls select too often when executing fast requests.

+

+ 4	Some priority scheme is needed to keep interactive clients

+ 	responding to the user.

+

+And, there are some assumptions about how X applications work:

+

+ 1	Each X request is executed relatively quickly; a request-granularity

+ 	is good enough for interactive response almost all of the time.

+

+ 2	X applications receiving mouse/keyboard events are likely to

+ 	warrant additional attention from the X server.

+

+Instead of a request-count metric for work, a time-based metric should be

+used.  The server should select a reasonable time slice for each client

+and execute requests for the entire timeslice before yielding to

+another client.

+

+Instead of returning immediately from WaitForSomething if clients have

+complete requests queued, the server should go through select each

+time and gather as many ready clients as possible.  This involves

+polling instead of blocking and adding the ClientsWithInput to

+clientsReadable after the select returns.

+

+Instead of yielding when the request buffer is empty for a particular

+client, leave the yielding to the upper level scheduling and allow

+the server to try and read again from the socket.  If the client

+is busy, another buffer full of requests will already be waiting

+to be delivered thus avoiding the call through select and the

+additional overhead in WaitForSomething.

+

+Finally, the dispatch loop should not simply execute requests from the

+first available client, instead each client should be prioritized with

+busy clients penalized and clients receiving user events praised.

+

+How it's done:

+

+Polling the current time of day from the OS is too expensive to

+be done at each request boundary, so instead an interval timer is

+set allowing the server to track time changes by counting invocations

+of the related signal handler.  Instead of using the wall time for

+this purpose, the process CPU time is used instead.  This serves

+two purposes -- first, it allows the server to consume no CPU cycles

+when idle, second it avoids conflicts with SIGALRM usage in other

+parts of the server code.  It's not without problems though; other

+CPU intensive processes on the same machine can reduce interactive

+response time within the X server.  The dispatch loop can now

+calculate an approximate time value using the number of signals

+received.  The granularity of the timer sets the scheduling jitter,

+at 20ms it's only occasionally noticeable.

+

+The changes to WaitForSomething and ReadRequestFromClient are

+straightforward, adjusting when select is called and avoiding

+setting isItTimeToYield too often.

+

+The dispatch loop changes are more extensive, now instead of

+executing requests from all available clients, a single client

+is chosen after each call to WaitForSomething, requests are

+executed for that client and WaitForSomething is called again.

+

+Each client is assigned a priority, the dispatch loop chooses the

+client with the highest priority to execute.  Priorities are

+updated in three ways:

+

+ 1.	Clients which consume their entire slice are penalized

+ 	by having their priority reduced by one until they

+	reach some minimum value.

+

+ 2.	Clients which have executed no requests for some time

+ 	are praised by having their priority raised until they

+	return to normal priority.

+

+ 3.	Clients which receive user input are praised by having

+ 	their priority rased until they reach some maximal

+	value, above normal priority.

+

+The effect of these changes is to both improve interactive application

+response and benchmark numbers at the same time.

+

+

+

+

+

+$XFree86: $