Closed
Bug 451028
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
Bug 447739 regressed performance on 64bit Linux
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: Swatinem, Assigned: roc)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: fixed1.9.1)
Attachments
(1 file)
1.12 KB,
patch
|
dbaron
:
review+
dbaron
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
With the patch from bug 447739 applied, the performance of the scrollmark test drops to ~122280ms, which is even below 1.9.0 level (Which is ~72532ms) Without the patch, the performance was roughly 20s with the iframe fully visible. System: Ubuntu Hardy 64bit
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → roc
Flags: blocking1.9.1?
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
Interesting, I can actually reproduce this on Mac (debug). QuartzDebug shows that the problem is we're painting too large an area, we seem to basically be painting two lines instead of one at every scroll operation.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
This fixes it for me. Arpad, if you're able to test this, I'd appreciate it. Sorry David, I know you asked me to check those additions, and I did, but I still got it wrong. The excluded area should not be translated, we've already intersected r with r+aDelta so that's the absolute area (relative to the reference frame) that we don't need to invalidate and no further translation is necessary. Additional translation means we've started using r+2*aDelta which is obviously wrong. I checked this does not regress bug 447739.
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
This patch got me back to 20437ms on the scrollmark in the case of a fully visible iframe, but I get 126106ms with a partially offscreen one. Thats weird.
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Attachment #334376 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
Pushed 40bd4f8a989d. Arpad, I'm afraid that if you still see the problem in a nightly build you'd better file yet another bug.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.9.1? → blocking1.9.1+
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Keywords: fixed1.9.1
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•