https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415313
--- Comment #5 from Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> --- FWIW, kwin master as of 054cfc1c8 seems to be /vastly/ improved, altho not /quite/ back to where it was. I'd say 75-80% (aka 3/4 to 4/5) of the original regression performance loss has been regained. I can run all my usual effects now, but still noticed a bit of slow-down until I tweaked configs a bit, adjusting the wobbly-windows config for normal windows and bumping animation speed (workspace behavior, general behavior, animation speed slider) for plasma (autohide panel showing speed, panel plasmoid hover popup morphing speed). It's fast enough now if I was new to plasma I'd never suspect the regression and would just tweak things if the default seemed slow until they worked as I wanted, and it's only that I had it tuned to what I wanted before and it was still slightly too slow with that config that hints at the far greater regression before. (In reply to Roman Gilg from comment #4) > Please check out if this solves the problem for you: > https://phabricator.kde.org/D26216 I take it that's not yet applied to master? Do I still need to try it? And/or would bisecting the commit at which I got most of the performance back still help? (While fiddling with the config I noticed the FPS effect once again. Too bad I didn't think to try enabling it when kwin was lagging out so badly. It'd have been nice to get real numbers, tho of course I still could by pinning the bad commit and rebuilding...) (My regular updates included a gcc-9.2.0 gentoo patch revision early in the update sequence, a mesa update from 19.3.0 to 19.3.1, and an llvm and clang update from 9.0.1-rc3 to 9.0.1 release, of interest given their usage with amdgpu for shader-compiling, etc. While kwin's 00bf75d06 commit did indeed regress something, it's possible that it was only as severe as I was seeing due to a bug in one of the above packages and that updating that package, not a kwin commit since then-head d72e96802, gave me back most of what I saw lost in that regression.) I've a couple more days off due to Christmas, and (if only for my own curiosity) may well do some more rebuild testing to pin down exactly what gave me that performance back, as well as testing D26216, but FWIW it's definitely workable now and as such I'd be OK with closing the bug, even if I didn't get 100% of the pre-regression performance back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
