test case: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=212976 spin off from bug 364221, for the evolution of the numbers see that bug. Gecko 1.9 Gecko 1.8 Safari 3.04 17220 7417 10089 17280 7347 10003 17070 7475 9906 17056 7311 9907 17236 7533 9895 ----- ----- ----- 17,172.4 7,424.6 9,960 (average over 5 runs) Gecko 1.9: 2007112816 Minefield/3.0b2pre Gecko 1.8: 20071128 BonEcho/220.127.116.11pre Tested on a PowerBook G4, 1.5Mhz, 1.5Gb ram
Summary: [Cairo][Mac PPC] bad page scrolling performance with large background images → [Cairo][Mac PPC] 131% perf regression when scrolling pages with large background images
Vlad - what do you want to do with this?
(In reply to comment #1) > Vlad - what do you want to do with this? > Ping?
Are those tests running with the image tiling or not? That is, all the windows need to be the same size for the numbers to have any meaning; ideally they'd be run with tiling and without tiling (to get without tiling, just shrink the window until you don't see the image repeat). Either way, I have a patch in cairo that will help in the tiling case, but under 10.5-only; in the non-tiling case, as best I can tell we're going straight to Quartz, so I'm not sure why the ppc numbers are slower.
+'ing with P4.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9+
Priority: -- → P4
(In reply to comment #3) > Are those tests running with the image tiling or not? That is, all the windows > need to be the same size for the numbers to have any meaning; ideally they'd be > run with tiling and without tiling (to get without tiling, just shrink the > window until you don't see the image repeat). All tests I did ran within windows approx. 1100px wide. To get the image to tile, I'd need a much larger monitor (my PowerBook G4 has 1280px screenwidth, the image in the test is 1280px wide).
Ok so I forced my window to be wide: about 1600px. Average of 5 runs for the test: 53156ms on current trunk build. yes: 53156ms. I then made a second test case, using a tall/narrow image (500px by 2500px) (I'll it attach next). With an ~1100px wide window (and 700px tall): background-image set to no-repeat: average of 13593ms background-image set to repeat-y: 13465ms background-image set to repeat-x: 50147ms <---------- ! (with repeat-x, the is image visible 3 times)
11 years ago
Assignee: nobody → vladimir
philippe, could you retest this on your ppc mac with the latest nightly?
Nice improvement :-). before after 19826ms 12896ms 20037ms 12857ms 19738ms 12728ms 20230ms 12747ms 19602ms 12813ms -------- -------- 19886.6 12808.2 before: 2008012717 Minefield/3.0b3pre after: 2008020615 Minefield/3.0b4pre When the image is tiled (test case attached to this bug with repeat-x), I get an average of 16683ms (vs 50147ms noted in comment 6). On a PowerBook G4, 1.5Ghz, 1.25 Gb. The numbers 'before' are somewhat slower than those in comment 0; I've used a slower machine (less RAM). My own PowerBook died over the new year. RIP.
> On a PowerBook G4, 1.5Ghz, 1.25 Gb. > The numbers 'before' are somewhat slower than those in comment 0; I've used a > slower machine (less RAM). My own PowerBook died over the new year. RIP. > Can you compare against 1.8 for same machine?
(In reply to comment #12) With Fx 18.104.22.168: 9719.4ms the tiled image test: 10160ms both average for 5 runs.
There's a very good chance that this was fixed completely after bug 418311 landed -- could you retest?
(In reply to comment #14) > There's a very good chance that this was fixed completely after bug 418311 > landed -- could you retest? > I wish I could -(. I don't have permanent access to a PPC machine anymore. The owner of the PowerBook I used for testing in comment 11 is on the road 'till the end of the week. If anyone else can test this...
Ok, lets call this done for now -- if someone gets a chance to retest, please reopen.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.