[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Akshay Deep  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 QA Contact||akshaydeepi...@gmail.com

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Akshay Deep  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|libreoffice-b...@lists.free |akshaydeepi...@gmail.com
   |desktop.org |
 QA Contact|akshaydeepi...@gmail.com|

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

--- Comment #10 from m.a.riosv  ---
Reading again the comments, and following comment#5 I have analyzed from 39 to
48 and just 48 makes the difference for me.

@Jay I guess a comment in the ESC could activate this change.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Yousuf (Jay) Philips  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||needsDevEval, topicUI
   Priority|medium  |high
 CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |akshaydeepi...@gmail.com,
   |.freedesktop.org|aniste...@gmail.com,
   ||bu...@bubli.org,
   ||lukebe...@hotmail.com,
   ||phil.j...@free.fr,
   ||samuel.mehrbr...@cib.de,
   ||tmac...@gmail.com
  Component|ux-advise   |LibreOffice
   Severity|enhancement |major

--- Comment #9 from Yousuf (Jay) Philips  ---
(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #8)
> I had reported those numbers because change the memory it's in my test the
> only relevant for speed up the load, and only until 48 Mb.

Thanks.

As one the core functionality of libreoffice is to load files, improving the
speed of the loading would IMO be the most important fix we could do, just like
we improved the speed of launching in 5.0.

I attempted to make a patch but the code was to difficult for my non-C++
skills, so here is a code pointer for whomever wants to take this on. I would
assume it should be easy to fix.

http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/cui/source/options/optmemory.cxx

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

--- Comment #8 from m.a.riosv  ---
I had reported those numbers because change the memory it's in my test the only
relevant for speed up the load, and only until 48 Mb.

New test.
Win10x64
Version: 5.1.2.0.0+ (x64)
Build ID: 6b3dd63dea6861180f438db71ca3f73df2aef200
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.19; UI Render: GL; 
TinderBox: Win-x86_64@62-TDF, Branch:libreoffice-5-1, Time: 2016-03-06_03:42:47

After clean profile, 20 Mb 1 pObj takes about 00'43" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 32 Mb 1 pObj takes about 00'42" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 48 Mb 1 pObj takes about 00'16" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 128 Mb 1 pObj takes about 00'16" before CPU goes to zero.

With graphics cache:  48 Mb 10 pObj takes about 00'16" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 128 Mb 10 pObj takes about 00'16" before CPU goes to zero.

It's clear that's a great improvement for a little change, as I commented seems
very admissible even for very basic computers.
What I don't know is if some non visible could help even more, e.g. taken
advantage of change the object's number.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

--- Comment #7 from Yousuf (Jay) Philips  ---
Someone stopped by the design IRC today asking about why LO took a long time to
load a document and i suggested he submit the document in a bug report and then
he returned later to say that the problem was solved by visiting the below
link, which suggested the same as the arch link of 128mb and 20mb.

https://www.organicweb.com.au/17237/general-technology/libre-office-slow/

(In reply to m.a.riosv from comment #6)
> Hi, added to this report data that I had commented in
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96095
> 
> Test with the file
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/0f/GS42-GettingStartedLO.odt
> reported by @Jay in 96095.

Thanks for the tests. Would be great if you did some with larger values like
64, 128, 256 and possible mix in changing Memory per object to 10, 15, and 20.

How can we move this forward as this seems like it should be an easy fix?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

m.a.riosv  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||miguelangelrv@libreoffice.o
   ||rg

--- Comment #6 from m.a.riosv  ---
Hi, added to this report data that I had commented in
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96095

Test with the file
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/0f/GS42-GettingStartedLO.odt
reported by @Jay in 96095.

Win10x64

Version: 5.0.4.0.0+
Build ID: 65bdad52a04dc1f5d771bdfdc8bce23e9ba74296
TinderBox: Win-x86@62-merge-TDF, Branch:libreoffice-5-0, Time:
2015-11-26_16:11:50

After clean profile, takes about 01'35" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 32 Mb takes about 01'34" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 48 Mb takes about 01'14" before CPU goes to zero.

Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: dc269d07e8e5d71818bc0a546c3daef4d50eb1c7
Threads 4; Ver: Windows 6.19; Render: GL; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@39, Branch:master, Time: 2015-11-27_07:36:59

After clean profile, takes about 03'55" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 32 Mb takes about 03'55" before CPU goes to zero.
With graphics cache: 48 Mb takes about 01'00" before CPU goes to zero.

Seeing the big difference on times until the CPU load is reduced, the low. is a
20% less time for 5.0.4, 
The change at least of the default memory size for graphics cache, seem fine,
taking in account that 48 Mb I think is a low value and acceptable for basic
computers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Yousuf (Jay) Philips  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
   ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93
   ||008

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

--- Comment #5 from Zolnai Tamás  ---
(In reply to Michael Stahl from comment #3)
> IIRC Tamas was looking at the graphic cache size some time ago?
> 
> Is the graphic cache size actually the same as what you set in the
> configuration or is there some multiplier applied?

I removed the multiplier last time, so I guess it's the same value. Except that
the old caching mechanism (GraphicCache class) still called in parallel with
the newer caching mechanism (GraphicObject class). So the real memory usage can
be twice of the configured value.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Michael Stahl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zolnaitamas2...@gmail.com

--- Comment #3 from Michael Stahl  ---
IIRC Tamas was looking at the graphic cache size some time ago?

Is the graphic cache size actually the same as what you set in the
configuration or is there some multiplier applied?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Michael Meeks  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||t...@iki.fi

--- Comment #2 from Michael Meeks  ---
Link 1. is a primary exhibit in the "Clueless Ricer" category. The Graphics
Cache size has -zero- impact on startup performance whatsoever. What does help
is a second-start ;-) so this is just measuring the page-cache win.

Having said that link #2 is more sane; I think increasing the graphics cache to
128Mb and 24Mb or something may make some sense.

It'd be nice to have some -real- quantitative data however; and that's hard to
get - since we don't really have performance measuring for lots of image heavy
tasks.

Tor - please can you can create a patch of this kind (should be a quick
officecfg/ hack) and push it into our benchmarking harness ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

--- Comment #4 from Yousuf (Jay) Philips  ---
Should we also be looking into increasing 'Cache for Inserted Objects' from its
current value of 20 as i'd assume that is graphics cache related?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 94760] Better default values for graphics cache

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94760

Cor Nouws  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 CC||c...@nouenoff.nl
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Cor Nouws  ---
Hi Jay,

I agree (and would swear there is an issue for this, but where..)
Cheers Cor

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs