| |||||||||||||
extensions.gnome.org launchesextensions.gnome.org launchesPosted Dec 2, 2011 14:53 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)In reply to: extensions.gnome.org launches by ovitters Parent article: extensions.gnome.org launches
No, I didn't file a bug because my guess is that it's a design problem, that is not something that you can fix in any simple way. The problem is that every time that you select a virtual desktop, the windows in it are displayed in real time and that IMO eats huge quantities of cpu when you have many windows open, even if they're dormant (I may be wrong obviously, it's just a guess). Couldn't they take snapshots of the windows at some interval and display them? They could have been even cached that way. Is that impractical or maybe I'm missing something obvious for some reason? Even better, why not just show a little part of the title and nothing graphical at all? Not enough fancy stuff?
(Log in to post comments)
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 15:16 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The scaling is done on the GPU, not the CPU. It's just displaying another copy of the texture that's aready in video memory.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 17:45 UTC (Fri) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
It does everything on the GPU? I guess that at least the management of the data structures to use those windows, to move them from the background to the foreground and anything else which isn't just showing an image is still done on the CPU, or maybe not?
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 2, 2011 18:20 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I'm not quite clear on what you mean. The CPU certainly has to tell the GPU where to draw the textures, but that's not a significant amount of work.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 3, 2011 15:07 UTC (Sat) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]
I was thinking about dropping this, since I doubt this can be interesting to anyone else other than myself, but, since I answered to another comment, here I am again. What I meant is that probably there is some other work done in the background by the gnome-shell which takes too much cpu time, not directly related to the simple act of just drawing textures.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 3, 2011 21:20 UTC (Sat) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Could be. We have a shell performance stats website at http://shell-perf.gnome.org/home. I guess we should check how it behaves with 100+ windows. Of course in a benchmark 100+ windows might be a few ms slower, but it should not be noticeable for a user (which is a 30% slowdown from what I heard).
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 5, 2011 8:55 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Maybe you mean it's done with OpenGL, so _hopefully_, _if_ you happen to have the right graphics card with the right driver, it _may_ be done in the GPU.
But how can this be related? Are you, MisterIO, showing all the 100 windows at the same time? Or maybe is GNOME Shell so dumb as to try to show all those scaled-down windows at the same time? Or worse, is it drawing them even if they are not shown?
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 5, 2011 12:06 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
If you don't have the right graphics driver with the right gpu, then right now you're not running Gnome Shell.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 4:21 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
That's the intent or the fact?
It seems like you could have a videocard and correct opengl driver that offers to do the operations but doesn't offer the performance. How is the capability tested?
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 4:28 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
How many opengl drivers do you think exist without the ability to scale textures?
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 20:24 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
For what size textures?
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 20:38 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
2048x2048 on Intel <965 and Radeon <r500, 4096x4096 on everything else as far as I know.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 20:48 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
There exists a whole range of hardware that never could handle textures over 256x256.
extensions.gnome.org launches Posted Dec 7, 2011 20:53 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I'm sure. I'm also sure that you're not running Gnome Shell on it.
|
|||||||||||||