From rimblin@outlook.com Sat May 24 21:16:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance-list@gnome.org Delivered-To: performance-list@gnome.org Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by restaurant.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798F7636A for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:16:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gnome.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from restaurant.gnome.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (restaurant.gnome.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhkUoqEBrESX for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:16:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 387 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at restaurant.gnome.org; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:16:54 UTC Received: from dub0-omc1-s34.dub0.hotmail.com (dub0-omc1-s34.dub0.hotmail.com [157.55.0.233]) by restaurant.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35CD76261 for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:16:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DUB110-W1 ([157.55.0.237]) by dub0-omc1-s34.dub0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 24 May 2014 14:10:04 -0700 X-TMN: [Ajth5Nm4qHRj4RIsW6ec2GbIkPMue5tq] X-Originating-Email: [rimblin@outlook.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_13a9bcf3-aaa0-4b5f-9a56-3189749d940a_" From: Rim Botede To: "performance-list@gnome.org" Subject: Dissecting performance regression on Gnome with Gen4 Intel GM45 Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 23:10:04 +0200 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2014 21:10:04.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[8889EF80:01CF7794] X-BeenThere: performance-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of GNOME desktop performance issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 21:16:56 -0000 --_13a9bcf3-aaa0-4b5f-9a56-3189749d940a_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The subject performance regression:https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cg= i?id=3D77372 Hello everyone! I need help with dissecting the performance regression i.e. identifying the= faulty component. It's far beyond my skills to do it on my own. I can prov= ide system information and command line outputs but I couldn't e.g. downgra= de xserver to a specific version or do a selective update of only Gnome She= ll=2C only graphics driver etc. Regression summary:1. Introduced between Fedora 18 and Fedora 19 releases. = Clean Fedora 18 showing no performance problems=2C clean Fedora 19 being af= fected by the regression.2. A system install (e.g. Fedora 19) affected by t= he regression shows no performance problems under KDE. The difference in de= sktop animation smoothness is striking. No need for telemetry.3. A Gnome Sh= ell developer (drago01) could not reproduce the bug on his Intel GM45 syste= m. I've done some F18 vs F19 vs Arch benchmarking / Gnome vs LXDE using Xonoti= c in windowed mode but the results were nowhere near as conclusive as #2. I'd really appreciate a thorough assistance with this issue. Regards=2Crim = --_13a9bcf3-aaa0-4b5f-9a56-3189749d940a_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The subject performance reg= ression:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D77372

Hello everyone!

I need help = with dissecting the performance regression i.e. identifying the faulty comp= onent. It's far beyond my skills to do it on my own. I can provide system i= nformation and command line outputs but I couldn't e.g. downgrade xserver t= o a specific version or do a selective update of only Gnome Shell=2C only g= raphics driver etc.


Regression summ= ary:
1. Introduced between Fedora 18 and Fedora 19 releases. Clea= n Fedora 18 showing no performance problems=2C clean Fedora 19 being affect= ed by the regression.
2. A system install (e.g. Fedora 19) affect= ed by the regression shows no performance problems under KDE. The differenc= e in desktop animation smoothness is striking. No need for telemetry.
=
3. A Gnome Shell developer (drago01) could not reproduce the bug on hi= s Intel GM45 system.

I've done some F18 vs F19 vs = Arch benchmarking / Gnome vs LXDE using Xonotic in windowed mode but the re= sults were nowhere near as conclusive as #2.

I'd r= eally appreciate a thorough assistance with this issue.

Regards=2C
rim
= --_13a9bcf3-aaa0-4b5f-9a56-3189749d940a_-- From rimblin@outlook.com Sat May 24 21:27:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: performance-list@gnome.org Delivered-To: performance-list@gnome.org Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by restaurant.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C457636A for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:27:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gnome.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from restaurant.gnome.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (restaurant.gnome.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PkVZYXQUIllI for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:27:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DUB004-OMC1S9.hotmail.com (dub004-omc1s9.hotmail.com [157.55.0.208]) by restaurant.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89A076261 for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 21:27:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DUB110-W69 ([157.55.0.237]) by DUB004-OMC1S9.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22678); Sat, 24 May 2014 14:27:24 -0700 X-TMN: [SNgsZhBU9orGuTV7wUt80D+Yu642zo9N] X-Originating-Email: [rimblin@outlook.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_34a1c3ac-d4a5-4f1b-968c-8c67edaab393_" From: Rim Botede To: "performance-list@gnome.org" Subject: Need clutter debug parameters documentation Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 23:27:24 +0200 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2014 21:27:24.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4767F40:01CF7796] X-BeenThere: performance-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of GNOME desktop performance issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 21:27:50 -0000 --_34a1c3ac-d4a5-4f1b-968c-8c67edaab393_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Relevant bug:https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D77372 Related mailing list message:Dissecting performance regression on Gnome wit= h Gen4 Intel GM45https://mail.gnome.org/archives/performance-list/2014-May/= msg00000.html I expect no one will answer the call so could anyone at least tell me where= are the debugging parameters properly documented? It's certainly not https= ://developer.gnome.org/clutter/1.9/running-clutter.html It doesn't even men= tion 'clipped' or 'culling' (on the example of the popular CLUTTER_PAINT=3D= disable-clipped-redraws:disable-culling). = --_34a1c3ac-d4a5-4f1b-968c-8c67edaab393_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Relevant bug:
htt= ps://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D77372

Relat= ed mailing list message:
Dissecting performance regression on Gnome wit= h Gen4 Intel GM45

I expect no one will answer the call so could anyone at least tell me= where are the debugging parameters properly documented? =3B
= It's certainly not =3Bhttp= s://developer.gnome.org/clutter/1.9/running-clutter.html =3BIt doesn't even mention 'clipped' or 'culling' = (on the example of the popular =3BCLUTTER_PAINT=3Ddisable-clipped-redraws:disable-culling).
=
= --_34a1c3ac-d4a5-4f1b-968c-8c67edaab393_--