Bug 1640779 Comment 9 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
(In reply to Kenny Levinsen :kennylevinsen from comment #8)
> (Note: I believe that on Wayland, swapInterval(1) might lead to basically guaranteeing that frames will be one refresh period old, but that's maybe a different topic altogether.)

Yeah, trying to wrap my head around what `swapInterval(1)` would mean for frame callback emission in Wayland compositors, given the implicit synchronisation in drivers (see bug 1634903, https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/1162)
Revision 1 by
on 
(In reply to Kenny Levinsen :kennylevinsen from comment #8)
> (Note: I believe that on Wayland, swapInterval(1) might lead to basically guaranteeing that frames will be one refresh period old, but that's maybe a different topic altogether.)

Yeah, trying to wrap my head around what `swapInterval(1)` would mean for frame callback emission in Wayland compositors, given the implicit synchronisation in drivers (see bug 1634903, https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/issues/1162)

Edit: never mind, I guess `swapInterval(1)` is no option on Wayland until we find some solution to use the GPU process - which would require some new protocol in the first place.

Back to Bug 1640779 Comment 9