Closed
Bug 899785
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Turn on OMTC Direct3D11 by default
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: Layers, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla32
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
relnote-firefox | --- | 32+ |
People
(Reporter: nrc, Assigned: bas.schouten)
References
(Depends on 3 open bugs)
Details
(Keywords: feature, Whiteboard: [leave open])
Attachments
(2 files, 1 obsolete file)
1.26 KB,
patch
|
mattwoodrow
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
1.26 KB,
patch
|
BenWa
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
No description provided.
Reporter | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Updated•11 years ago
|
Version: 21 Branch → Trunk
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Try push to see where we stand with tests after all the 'd3d9' stuff landed: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=177af481a346
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Green on Try now! https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=86be01d48e9a
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
OK, looking good again: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=fe17ea23986d
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8342151 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow)
Reporter | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [leave open]
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
try push: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=8894450375fb
Updated•10 years ago
|
Attachment #8342151 -
Flags: review?(matt.woodrow) → review+
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/ba41e330fc7a
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ba41e330fc7a
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
There were a number of performance regressions (paint, tp5 responsiveness, tp5 private bytes, canvasmark, tresize) blamed on this checkin. Some are pretty significant (treeize regressed by 30-50%; private bytes went up by 10%). Are there bugs tracking these?
Flags: needinfo?(ncameron)
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
And out: https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/725c36b5de1a
Flags: needinfo?(ncameron)
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky [:bz] from comment #8) > There were a number of performance regressions (paint, tp5 responsiveness, > tp5 private bytes, canvasmark, tresize) blamed on this checkin. Some are > pretty significant (treeize regressed by 30-50%; private bytes went up by > 10%). > > Are there bugs tracking these? Not yet, but there will be. Now planning to fix before relanding.
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
ping me if you need help interpreting or reproducing talos tests. We can test on try server and see if the values match up.
Updated•10 years ago
|
Depends on: 986851
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: ncameron → bas
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8424395 -
Flags: review?(bgirard)
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
Correct a mistake in the previous patch.
Attachment #8424395 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8424395 -
Flags: review?(bgirard)
Attachment #8424398 -
Flags: review?(bgirard)
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8424398 [details] [diff] [review] Switch on OMTC on windows everywhere v2 Review of attachment 8424398 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheers! \o\
Attachment #8424398 -
Flags: review?(bgirard) → review+
Updated•10 years ago
|
Hardware: x86_64 → x86
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
Backed out in https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b21a2a8e9d6b - the timeout increase in https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/de4e01e6e14d may well have been enough to get webm-video/bug686957.html to pass on Win7 opt, but not on debug, and the bug 1012487 style failure of "some test, a different one each time" is not workable.
This landed in https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/718a9852b60d And was backed out in https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/68a82abaefd2 for really frequent Windows reftest failures: https://tbpl.mozilla.org/php/getParsedLog.php?id=39965482&tree=Mozilla-Inbound
Flags: needinfo?(bas)
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
Wasn't reftest-omtc (bug 973703) enabled on Cedar specifically to work out the Windows reftest issues prior to this being enabled by default?
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/46d9ffb97fe3
Flags: needinfo?(bas)
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
Once OMTC/Win is enabled for stable, make sure to relnote.
relnote-firefox:
--- → ?
Keywords: feature
Comment 22•10 years ago
|
||
Do we track OMTC performance issues other than at bug 1013262? I found 2 test cases where OMTC regresses on windows (ASUS T100 with Bay Trail Atom z3740). I'm adding them here for reference and to not forget about them. 1. "12-texture.html" demo from Benwa Jacob's webgl-tutorial: http://bjacob.github.io/webgl-tutorial/ performs considerably and visibly worse with OMTC. Most of the other demo cases on this page are also considerably worse with OMTC. 2. "Canvas" from a benchmark suite we're considering adding to talos (bug 1020365, after it helped us notice a regression in bug 1001845). Without OMTC the canvas FPS is 30, with OMTC it's 20 --> ~50% regression. bjacob, would you consider these webgl demos (at "1.") a reasonable/valid test cases for OMTC?
Flags: needinfo?(bjacob)
Comment 23•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Avi Halachmi (:avih) from comment #22) > Do we track OMTC performance issues other than at bug 1013262? > > I found 2 test cases where OMTC regresses on windows (ASUS T100 with Bay > Trail Atom z3740). I'm adding them here for reference and to not forget > about them. > > 1. "12-texture.html" demo from Benwa Jacob's webgl-tutorial: > http://bjacob.github.io/webgl-tutorial/ performs considerably and visibly > worse with OMTC. Most of the other demo cases on this page are also > considerably worse with OMTC. > > 2. "Canvas" from a benchmark suite we're considering adding to talos (bug > 1020365, after it helped us notice a regression in bug 1001845). Without > OMTC the canvas FPS is 30, with OMTC it's 20 --> ~50% regression. > > bjacob, would you consider these webgl demos (at "1.") a reasonable/valid > test cases for OMTC? WebGL performance is a known regression from OMTC, see bug 1000640. That said, we currently have 0 performance data on WebGL and that seems pretty awful given our current push on gaming. I don't have any feedback on those specific demos, but we should definitely start building a WebGL version of CanvasMark for this purpose.
Comment 24•10 years ago
|
||
We do have WebGL performance tests, no need to write new ones.... but we don't run them! https://github.com/KhronosGroup/WebGLPerf An earlier version of them can be run online there: http://hg.mozilla.org/users/bjacob_mozilla.com/webgl-perf-tests/raw-file/3729e8afac99/index.html It would be very nice if someone could find the time to make these e.g. a Talos test or something. Note that the Chromium team has already integrated these tests into their own regression testing.
Flags: needinfo?(bjacob)
Comment 25•10 years ago
|
||
To answer your question, sure these demos are valid tests for the purpose of catching such basic regressions; but if the performance regression tests also catch this regression, then they are better, being simpler.
Comment 26•10 years ago
|
||
To be honest I do think that a severe WebGL performance regression can only be tolerated for a few days on the nightly channel, at most. If we can't have this fixed in time for the Aurora merge next week, I hope we'd revert or back out. Or else, I don't want to be the one who'll have to explain that to game developers...
Comment 27•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Benoit Jacob [:bjacob] from comment #24) > It would be very nice if someone could find the time to make these e.g. a > Talos test or something. Note that the Chromium team has already integrated > these tests into their own regression testing. Definitely on my radar. I have few tests I want to add to talos which need some prioritization, and right now it seems like the WebGL one is the highest priority. Thanks for the links to existing WebGL tests, I'll start with them.
Updated•10 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•10 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla32
(In reply to Matt Woodrow (:mattwoodrow) from comment #23) > WebGL performance is a known regression from OMTC, see bug 1000640. > > That said, we currently have 0 performance data on WebGL and that seems > pretty awful given our current push on gaming. I don't have any feedback on > those specific demos, but we should definitely start building a WebGL > version of CanvasMark for this purpose. FWIW, we have an internal-only source license to GfxBench, and have emscripten-compiled it. What we're missing is a reliable way to run these benchmarks on hardware that we care about...
Comment 29•10 years ago
|
||
Also see bug 1020663, and make sure to keep Avi in the loop if other developments happen on this front.
Comment 30•10 years ago
|
||
Oh right, this is the bug where this conversation started :-)
Updated•10 years ago
|
Updated•10 years ago
|
Updated•10 years ago
|
Comment 31•10 years ago
|
||
I don't think this is on 32. 33, hopefully, 34 "for sure".
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•