From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 19:43:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC63E16A4CE for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakermmtao01.cox.net (lakermmtao01.cox.net [68.230.240.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B04543D58 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.11]) by lakermmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040418024342.JVML6045.lakermmtao01.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:43:42 -0400 To: Joe Marcus Clarke References: <1081642034.39137.16.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Message-ID: From: Jeremy Messenger Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:44:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1081642034.39137.16.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> User-Agent: Opera7.23/Linux M2 build 518 cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VTE w/ new patch makes skip frame (feel slow) when type.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:43:42 -0000 Thanks for commit it! :-) Cheers, Mezz On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:07:14 -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 18:24, Jeremy Messenger wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I can type very fast and I hold down key like down or up pretty often >> for >> PR. With the new patch of VTE that has been added looks like this: >> >> files/patch-src_vte.c: >> ======================================= >> [...] >> >> -#define VTE_CHILD_INPUT_PRIORITY G_PRIORITY_DEFAULT_IDLE >> +#define VTE_CHILD_INPUT_PRIORITY G_PRIORITY_LOW >> >> [...] >> >> -#define VTE_COALESCE_TIMEOUT 2 >> +#define VTE_COALESCE_TIMEOUT 50 >> ======================================= >> >> This cause the type 'feel like' slow, but itself is faster than before >> in >> the benchmark (below). I am not sure what's right word for it but it's >> almost like game or video frame per sec. However, with this patch; it >> skips the frame that make it fee like slow. If I remove above patch and >> it >> feels much more smoother and faster. So... I decided to try to change >> from >> 50 to 25/15 and it works a lot better! > > I guess this depends on the video card. I tested this patch for a long > time, and never noticed an interactivity slow-down. However, that > number is really a "feel" kind of thing. Let's face it, vte is slow, > and it just takes tweaking to get it to feel better. > > I'll play with 15 some, and see what I find. > >> >> Benchmark: >> ======================================= >> $ time ls -R /usr/ports >> >> With above patch: >> 13.91 real 0.24 user 1.13 sys >> hold 'a' key and skip frame like at the every three 'a'; it feels >> slower. >> >> With above patch and 50 -> 25: >> 13.91 real 0.33 user 1.04 sys >> hold 'a' key and no skip frame; it feels smoother and faster. >> >> With above patch and 50 -> 15: >> 14.08 real 0.28 user 1.08 sys >> hold 'a' key and no skip frame; it feels smoother and faster. >> >> Without above patch: >> 21.89 real 0.28 user 1.12 sys >> hold 'a' key and no skip frame; it feels smoother and faster. >> ======================================= >> >> So far, I think 15 is the better number to use because it feels more >> smoother and faster. Also, that include in the real benchmark is still >> fast. Can anyone test the default one from offical ports tree then try >> this patch (vte.diff) in attach? >> >> Off point, I played with the benchmark: >> ======================================= >> $ time ls -R /usr/ports >> >> aterm: 3.40 real 0.47 user 1.23 sys >> xterm: 6.47 real 0.34 user 1.38 sys >> gnome: 13.91 real 0.33 user 1.04 sys >> ======================================= > > Be careful. When doing benchmarks, you want to make sure you just don't > run one after the other, and time them. The first one will be extra > slow as it builds the inode cache. What I did was run a full ls -lR in > xterm, then immediately ran it again and timed it. then I repeated for > gnome-terminal. I found xterm to be exceptionally fast (much faster > than your numbers here). > > Joe > >> >> Cheers, >> Mezz -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.