Closed
Bug 799956
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Slow scrolling in nightlies when using opacity < 1
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: janmoesen_=-bugzilla-=+spamtrap, Assigned: mattwoodrow)
References
Details
Attachments
(3 files, 1 obsolete file)
|
4.27 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
|
4.58 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
|
1.26 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
akeybl
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:18.0) Gecko/18.0 Firefox/18.0
Build ID: 20121008031745
Steps to reproduce:
Scrolling is slow on a page with lots of partially transparent elements.
Actual results:
Somewhere between the latest stable release and the current nightly, scrolling performance regressed. It is now sluggish and jerky.
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #669970 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → text/html
Updated•13 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Untriaged → Graphics: Layers
Ever confirmed: true
Product: Firefox → Core
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
I can reproduce on osx.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
When using rgba() with an alpha of 0.85 instead, scrolling is without lag. (Of course, this is not a general replacement, since things like images and replaced content are not affected by (background-)color: rgba(). This is probably not really a useful test case, but I am attaching it nonetheless. Hah.
| Reporter | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #670102 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → text/html
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
Hi, Paul or Jan, could you post the graphics section of about:support please?
| Reporter | ||
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
Reformatted for legibility (the table structure is not copied correctly):
Device ID
0x 407
GPU Accelerated Windows
2/2 OpenGL
Vendor ID
0x10de
WebGL Renderer
no information
AzureCanvasBackend
quartz
AzureContentBackend
none
AzureFallbackCanvasBackend
none
For completeness' sake, here is the "Graphics/Display" section from system_profiler:
Graphics/Displays:
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT:
Chipset Model: GeForce 8600M GT
Type: GPU
Bus: PCIe
PCIe Lane Width: x16
VRAM (Total): 256 MB
Vendor: NVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID: 0x0407
Revision ID: 0x00a1
ROM Revision: 3175
Displays:
Color LCD:
Resolution: 1440 x 900
Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Built-In: Yes
Display Connector:
Status: No Display Connected
Updated•13 years ago
|
Keywords: regressionwindow-wanted
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
Graphics
Device ID
0x 8a2
GPU Accelerated Windows
1/1 OpenGL
Vendor ID
0x10de
WebGL Renderer
no information
AzureCanvasBackend
quartz
AzureContentBackend
none
AzureFallbackCanvasBackend
none
Comment 7•13 years ago
|
||
| Reporter | ||
Comment 8•13 years ago
|
||
Seems to have regressed between build ID 20120928030544 (good) and build ID 20120929030624 (bad).
Good: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012-09-28-03-05-44-mozilla-central/firefox-18.0a1.en-US.mac.dmg
Bad: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012-09-29-03-06-24-mozilla-central/firefox-18.0a1.en-US.mac.dmg
Tested using a new profile.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 9•13 years ago
|
||
Sorry to keep spamming, but here is the pushlog: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=895f66c4eada&tochange=c09a0c022b2e
Comment 10•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jan Moesen from comment #9)
> Sorry to keep spamming, but here is the pushlog:
> http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
> pushloghtml?fromchange=895f66c4eada&tochange=c09a0c022b2e
Thanks for all the info, it's all useful, not spam :-)
Nothing in there strikes me as that suspicious - I would expect a change to layers to cause this (opacity, scrolling = layers to me), but then all the DLBI patches landed there, so that could affect this somehow.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 11•13 years ago
|
||
Definitely a DLBI regression, I'll take this.
Assignee: nobody → matt.woodrow
Keywords: regressionwindow-wanted
| Assignee | ||
Comment 12•13 years ago
|
||
We were hitting component alpha flattening (even on accelerated layers) on our inactive (BasicLayers) layer trees. Pain ensues.
Attachment #671292 -
Flags: review?(roc)
I think the BasicLayerManager for inactive layers should return true for AreComponentAlphaLayersEnabled().
| Assignee | ||
Comment 14•13 years ago
|
||
Attachment #671292 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #671292 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #671316 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #671316 -
Flags: review?(roc) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 15•13 years ago
|
||
For bug 795322, panning on e.me sucks rocks on https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1bca31fd0e58, and back up to 60fps on https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/65652fcb58dc .
\o/
Transferring blocking-basecamp+ to this bug.
Matt, do you mind requesting aurora approval for this when you're comfortable with the bake time? I don't understand this patch very well so I don't feel comfortable writing up a risk analysis.
blocking-basecamp: --- → +
Comment 18•13 years ago
|
||
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla19
Comment 19•13 years ago
|
||
> Transferring blocking-basecamp+ to this bug.
>
> Matt, do you mind requesting aurora approval for this when you're
> comfortable with the bake time? I don't understand this patch very well so
> I don't feel comfortable writing up a risk analysis.
+1, if we can get this landed on Aurora (assuming risk is manageable), that would be great. Thanks.
Comment 20•13 years ago
|
||
status-firefox18:
--- → fixed
status-firefox19:
--- → fixed
Hey Ryan, this bug is blocking-basecamp+, but since it's not zero risk for desktop/android, we need explicit approval for it. Sorry, the rules are a little confusing and unobvious :(.
mattwoodrow/roc/akeybl, what would you guys like to do here?
Comment 22•13 years ago
|
||
I probably won't be able to back this out until tomorrow, so you'll need to do it if that's what they decide.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 23•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 671316 [details] [diff] [review]
Only flatten component alpha layers that are part of a widget layer tree v2
[Approval Request Comment]
Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): Bug 539356
User impact if declined: Unnecessary invalidation, has a significant performance impact for b2g.
Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Been on m-c for a few days without issue, confirmed that it fixes b2g performance issues.
Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Should be fairly low risk, changes code paths for text inside transform, but changes it to a simpler one (and essentially reverts behaviour to pre-DLBI behaviour).
String or UUID changes made by this patch: None
Attachment #671316 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
(In reply to Ryan VanderMeulen from comment #22)
> I probably won't be able to back this out until tomorrow, so you'll need to
> do it if that's what they decide.
No worries --- I'll back out if we don't get approval Real Soon Now. Thanks for helping get this stuff landed, as always :).
Backed out
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/7405fdfe1b89
/me eagerly waiting approval to get re-landed!
Updated•13 years ago
|
Comment 26•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow) from comment #23)
> Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Should be fairly low
> risk, changes code paths for text inside transform, but changes it to a
> simpler one (and essentially reverts behaviour to pre-DLBI behaviour).
I like pre-DLBI behavior, and this is blocking-basecamp+. I think this risk is manageable. Approving for Aurora 18.
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #671316 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 27•13 years ago
|
||
Music to my ears.
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/e94f1c37f8ed
\o/
Comment 29•13 years ago
|
||
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0
Verified as fixed in Firefox 19 Beta 5 (BuildID: 20130206083616), latest Aurora (BuildID: 20130208042018) and latest Nightly (BuildID: 20130208031053)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•