<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <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#c45">Comment # 45</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 <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=rstrode%40redhat.com" title="Ray Strode [halfline] <rstrode@redhat.com>"> Ray Strode [halfline]</a> <pre>(In reply to Christian Hergert from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c40">comment #40</a>) > I'm going to add some updated patches for cogl and mutter, but I'm > unconvinced that we need them yet. Simply applying the gdk-wayland patch > above gets us almost all the way there. > > The reason I'm suggesting not using the cogl and mutter patches will be > obvious by looking at the attached graph. > > Notice how the predicted timing is 25msec across the board. This is what > happens when GdkFrameClock can't predict the timing and so it guesses > "half-way between frame". 16.7+8.35=25.5 So one thing I don't understand is, doesn't <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c37">comment 37</a> / <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=763350#c38">comment 38</a> imply the timings aren't actually getting used at all? Granted, I haven't investigated in detail with gdb/etc, but from your comment and briefly looking at the code it seems like we freeze the clock any time we draw (on_frame_clock_after_paint), and we thaw it when we get a frame callback. As soon as we thaw it we call maybe_start_idle which immediately dispatches the frame clock with a min_interval of 0. I don't think the frame clock timings are used (or am I missing something?)?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>