Okay, then it seems reasonable to roll it out, so I'm going to revert it
next week.
Zoltan
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:12:00 +0200, <jocelyn.turco...@nokia.com> wrote:
Forget my last comment, this seems to be directly related to the use of
QImage instead of QPixmaps.
The directfb platform plugin uses QBlitterPaintEngine which handles
drawPixmap in QDirectFbBlitter::drawPixmap rather than using straight
CPU raster for drawImage.
________________________________________
From: webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org
[webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org] on behalf of Turcotte Jocelyn
(Nokia-MP/Oslo)
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:53 PM
To: zol...@webkit.org; webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
Subject: Re: [webkit-qt] [Qt] Strong performance degradation with
DirectFB since r122720
Ahh it's a canvas test, this might also be related to the deep-copy
protection that was removed in the patch, when a QPainter is beginning
on an existing image.
________________________________________
From: webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org
[webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org] on behalf of Turcotte Jocelyn
(Nokia-MP/Oslo)
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:35 PM
To: zol...@webkit.org; webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
Subject: Re: [webkit-qt] [Qt] Strong performance degradation with
DirectFB since r122720
Why was it necessary to switch from QPixmap to QImage?
I don't think that this can be solved on the Qt side, it's a design
advantage that QPixmap has in this kind of situations.
As far as I know this might be mostly related to reusing a graphics
buffer that already has been uploaded to graphics memory.
Jocelyn
________________________________________
From: webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org
[webkit-qt-boun...@lists.webkit.org] on behalf of ext Zoltan Horvath
[zol...@webkit.org]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:17 PM
To: webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
Subject: Re: [webkit-qt] [Qt] Strong performance degradation with
DirectFB since r122720
Hi there,
Shouldn't we report this on Qt-side instead?
Cheers,
Zoltan
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:02:13 +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
<k...@carewolf.com> wrote:
On Friday 14 September 2012, Brianceau, Julien wrote:
With r126284 based webkit version, I get 11,3 displayed fps, with a CPU
usage of more than 95% With r126284 based webkit version with changeset
122720 reverted, I get 25,6 displayed fps, with a CPU usage of about
90%
Yes with a 50% speed regression also on Qt5, I think we need to revert
the
patch in trunk, otherwise I would have suggested only reverting it in
QtWebKit
2.3. But having as few difference as possible is better, so I am
actually
relieved it was also slower in Qt5.
Cheers
`Allan
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
_______________________________________________
webkit-qt mailing list
webkit-qt@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-qt
