<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c20">Comment # 20</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - drawing performance worse than X"
href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=763350">bug 763350</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=mclasen%40redhat.com" title="Matthias Clasen <mclasen@redhat.com>"> <span class="fn">Matthias Clasen</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Christian Hergert from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c9">comment #9</a>)
<span class="quote">> I'm running weston under X to test this, and it looks like the number of
> frames rendered is about half that of the same code on Xorg.
>
> I was curious about the raw memfd costs, so put together an informative test:
>
> - memfd_create()
> - ftruncate(2*page_size)
> - mmap()
> - page fault all pages
> - munmap()
> - close()
>
> The cost for all of the above is about .06 msec. So not really that bad.
> Interestingly, half of the time is spent on close()!</span >
2 pages is pretty small - if you have a maximized window, say 1024x768 pixels,
that is ~1000 pages at 1k pixels/page</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>