On 11/09/07 13:05 +0200, Stefano Fedrigo wrote: > I've done some more profiling on the 16 vs. 24 bpp issue. > This time I used this test: > https://dev.laptop.org/git?p=sugar;a=blob;f=tests/graphics/hipposcalability.py > > A simple speed test: I measured the time required to scroll down and up > one time all the generated list. Not extremely accurate, but I repeated the > test a few times with consistent results (+- 0.5 secs). Mean times: > > xserver 1.4 > 16 bpp: 37.9 > 24 bpp: 40.7 > > xserver 1.3 > 16: 46.4 > 24: 50.1 > > At 24 bpp we're a little slower. 1.3 is 20% slower than 1.4. The pixman > migration patch makes the difference: 1.3 spend most of that 20% in memcpy(). > > The oprofile reports are from xserver 1.4. I don't see much difference > between 16 and 24, except that at 24 bpp, less time is spent in pixman and > more > in amd_drv. At 16 bpp pixman_fill() takes twice the time. > > Unfortunately without a working callgraph it's not very clear to me what's > happening in amd_drv. At 24bpp gp_wait_until_idle() takes twice the time...
What can we do to fix this? I would really like to know who is calling gp_wait_until_idle(). Also, I think we're spending way too much time in gp_color_bitmap_to_screen_blt() - is there any way we can get more indepth profiling in that one function? Jordan _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel