Mention x11perf as the source for the performance measurements

diff --git a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
index 29d705bbfb89a844d0f396383d955cd96bec9126..e89bdeb81e1225a9ae32be90cca9ff377ead3df0 100644 (file)
--- a/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
+++ b/src/exa/what_exa_gets_right.mdwn
@@ -26,8 +26,9 @@ glyph rendering).
 So, briefly here, I want to mention a couple of things that EXA is
 doing a fine job with. The first is the big reason why you don't want
 to run an X server with NoAccel: scrolling will hurt very badly. Take
-a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a
-rectangle of various sizes.
+a look at these rates for a window-to-window copy of a rectangle of
+various sizes. These results are from "x11perf -copywinwinX" and
+multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation.
 
 [All tests here are with very recent checkouts of xserver, mesa, and
 xf86-video-intel. Tests are run on an Intel Core 2 CPU @ 2.13GHz with
@@ -53,7 +54,8 @@ this test, but not significantly.
 Second, let's look at another common operation, filling solid
 rectangles. This is an essential step in almost any rending, (for
 clearing to the background color), as well as for actually rendering
-some content.
+some content. These results are from "x11perf -rectX", again
+multiplied by the number of pixels in each operation.
 
 [[rectangle-fill.png]]