Performance change from X in Fedora Core 4 to Fedora Core 5
eric at anholt.net
Sun Jul 9 12:53:14 PDT 2006
On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 20:00 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 16:27 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> > > I should point out that at GUADEC we have people with benchmarks proving
> > > that GTK+ 2.8 is slower than 2.6, the GTK+ developers, and the Cairo
> > > developers in the same room. At the moment profiling is being done,
> > > Cairo is being optimised, and any non-essential and proven slow use of
> > > Cairo in GTK is being removed.
> > While cairo is certainly in need of performance improvements, the usage
> > of cairo by Gtk+ 2.8 is very limited, to the point where cairo
> > performance should have very little impact on Gtk+ application
> > performance.
> > As far as I understand it, the only Gtk+ widget using cairo is the color
> > selector, and the only other significant usage is pango, which hits
> > essentially the same Render paths through cairo as it did through Xft.
> > We need to profile Gtk+ 2.6 and Gtk+ 2.8 environments before attempting
> > to diagnose performance problems; uninformed speculation is not helpful.
> The Maemo guys really did profile 2.6 vs 2.8, and it really was vastly
> slower. Carl has all the results in hand.
Well, I saw that benchmark (did they provide more than one?) at GUADEC,
and a couple seconds of the profile up on the screen. In the profile,
there appeared to be just a couple of minor fixes to be done within
cairo, one of which I threw up in my personal cairo tree (solid-fonts
branch) until it could get more testing. That change actually would fit
in better after server-gradients landed anyway.
Eric Anholt anholt at FreeBSD.org
eric at anholt.net eric.anholt at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the xorg