> Jamie, I think you recently changed our behaviour around managing large textures in the texture cache. Did that fix this, and if not, should it? That's the patch Glenn mentions in comment 10, which seems to have helped. Presumably that part was due to bug 1658182 as identified in comment 7. As for the earlier regression caused by bug 1616901. We no longer use texture arrays and have changed to 2048x2048 2d textures. But the effect is the same: the cache is now split in to multiple fixed size textures instead of fewer massive ones. On my computer I see some frames with really high draw call counts, so I suspect it's due to this. We definitely don't want to go back to larger textures, but maybe batching could be improved on this page somehow.
Bug 1678935 Comment 14 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> Jamie, I think you recently changed our behaviour around managing large textures in the texture cache. Did that fix this, and if not, should it? That's the patch Glenn mentions in comment 10, which seems to have helped. Presumably that part was due to bug 1658182 as identified in comment 7. As for the earlier regression caused by bug 1616901. We no longer use texture arrays and have changed to 2048x2048 2d textures. But the effect is the same: the cache is now split in to multiple fixed size textures instead of fewer massive ones. On my computer I see some frames with really high draw call counts, so I suspect the remaining slowness is due to this. We definitely don't want to go back to larger textures, but maybe batching could be improved on this page somehow.