This bug was fixed in the package metacity - 1:3.18.4-0ubuntu0.1
---
metacity (1:3.18.4-0ubuntu0.1) xenial; urgency=medium
* New upstream bugfix release.
- Fixes crashes (LP: #1573478).
- Fixes performance regressions (LP: #1566157).
* Drop both patches, applied upstream.
This bug was fixed in the package metacity - 1:3.18.4-1ubuntu1
---
metacity (1:3.18.4-1ubuntu1) yakkety; urgency=medium
* Merge with Debian unstable, remaining changes:
- debian/metacity-common.links: Show keybindings in Unity control center.
- debian/metacity-common.gsettin
I just tried it and it indeed solves the performance issues:
Old version 1:3.18.3-1ubuntu3:
$ vblank_mode=0 glxgears
27418 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5483.539 FPS
New version 1:3.18.4-0ubuntu0.1:
$ vblank_mode=0 glxgears
39851 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7970.179 FPS
** Tags removed: verification-neede
Dmitry, please upload this to yakkety as well, otherwise this cannot
land in -updates.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157
Title:
Metacity's compositing is too
Hello Alkis, or anyone else affected,
Accepted metacity into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/1:3.18.4-0ubuntu0.1 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
htt
** Description changed:
- I did the following benchmarks between `metacity --no-composite`,
- `metacity --composite`, and `compiz`, in Ubuntu 16.04.
+ [Impact]
+ Metacity's performance is about 2 times slower than it was in 14.04 version.
It is a regression from previous LTS and impacts users wit
Yup, I'm using your 1:3.18.3+git20160418-1ubuntu3 metacity many hours per day
on my main work PC.
i386, Xenial, Core i5-4440 @ 3.10 GHz, 8 GB RAM.
I haven't seen any regressions so far, and I cannot even reproduce the
issue Dmitry reported; although I've seen some recent commits of yours
that mig
Alkis, do you use metacity daily? We need to know if my changes does not
introduce other regressions.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157
Title:
Metacity's comp
Thank you Alberts, yup that indeed increased the performance a lot:
xenial-metacity --no-composite:
30407 frames in 5.0 seconds = 6081.219 FPS
ppa-metacity --no-composite:
37147 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7429.385 FPS
marco --no-composite:
37146 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7429.081 FPS
Alberts, Dmitry
https://launchpad.net/~albertsmuktupavels/+archive/ubuntu/metacity-3-18
** Attachment removed: "test.tar.xz"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+attachment/4638613/+files/test.tar.xz
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop
Alberts I'm mostly using i386 installations so I could only test amd64 in a VM.
I did saw a performance improvement there, but it wasn't as big as in the real
hardware case...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity i
> Dmitry and Alkis, can you both re-test gnome-3-18 branch? After that I
will make 3.18.4 release.
Unfortunately there is a crash with the latest gnome-3-18 branch (commit
b299d7d).
Steps to reproduce:
1) Open some windows
2) Click on "Show Desktop" icon to hide them
3) Press Alt+Tab or Super+Ta
Alkis, I built new packages from gnome-3-18, but did not test... Use at
your own risk.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157
Title:
Metacity's compositing is too
** Attachment added: "test.tar.xz"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+attachment/4638613/+files/test.tar.xz
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
I'm having a hard time applying all the last e.g. 20 upstream commits to
the Xenial tree.
@Dmitry, since you'll be merging the upstream with the Ubuntu tree anyway in
order to test it youself,
would it be possible to push the result somewhere, e.g. in launchpad,
or publish a .deb in a PPA,
so tha
Ok, I have pushed all changes to master and gnome-3-18 branches.
Dmitry and Alkis, can you both re-test gnome-3-18 branch? After that I
will make 3.18.4 release.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
http
> only when the windows repainted themselves they started to become
visible.
I've seen that in the past about 5 times in the last 2 years.
I don't remember which LTS gnome-flashback version I was using.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Dmitry Shachnev
wrote:
> I tested the wip/test-3-18 branch and got the following bug:
>
> At some point (when I was switching windows?) the screen became
> completely black, and only when the windows repainted themselves they
> started to become visible. I.e. firs
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Alkis Georgopoulos <
1566...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> I tested again with the client from comment #7 (an old intel 8xx based
> laptop), and I reproduced what you said, i.e. that your patches indeed
> made metacity fast again:
>
> no-wm: 481.234
> compiz: 473.24
I tested the wip/test-3-18 branch and got the following bug:
At some point (when I was switching windows?) the screen became
completely black, and only when the windows repainted themselves they
started to become visible. I.e. first the window after the mouse became
again visible, then when I pres
Alberts, I'm sorry, the (new) client that I tested with is giving me
very inconsistent results, even by just rebooting it, and I'm not going
to use it in benchmarks again in the future. It's a 3-year-old AMD-based
laptop; maybe the problem is in the radeon driver or in its power
states, anyway, ple
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Alkis Georgopoulos <
1566...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> I tried applying the latest 13 commits from the test-3-18 branch on top
> of Xenial's metacity.
>
Are you sure that all patches applied?
If my benchmarks were correct, it made things even slower.
>
> glma
Hi Alberts,
I tried applying the latest 13 commits from the test-3-18 branch on top
of Xenial's metacity.
If my benchmarks were correct, it made things even slower.
glmark2 score:
xenial-metacity --no-composite: 311
test-3-18-metacity --no-composite: 154
xenial-marco --no-composite: 902
I.e. no
Any chance you could test this branch:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/metacity/log/?h=wip/test-3-18
It should restore speed at least in no-composite case. Please test and
report any regression you see.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is
Thanks! No, you don't need to test anything now...
I found why it is slow, but it is not something I could revert - I need to find
proper solution.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launc
To sum up, two problems:
1) `metacity (and marco) --composite` in 12.04 and 14.04 had only 60% of the
compiz performance.
2) `metacity` (both composite and no-composite) got a lot slower in 16.04, at
60% and 25% respectively of the compiz performance.
--
You received this bug notification beca
> Any chance that you could track down version when it started to be slow?
> Was composite already slow in previous LTS?
Initial tests show that metacity had about the same performance as marco in
12.04 and in 14.04.
In those versions, `metacity (or marco) --composite` performs only about 60% as
Any chance that you could track down version when it started to be slow?
Was composite already slow in previous LTS?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157
Title:
Yet another benchmark, glmark2, in a very recent core i5 client.
Scores:
No WM: 2058
marco --no-composite: 1894
compiz : 1878
metacity --no-composite: 742
xcompmgr: 716
marco --composite: 708
metacity --composite: 441
In an ideal world, gnome-flashback would support compiz first, then
`metacity -
Here's another benchmark, with an SDL 2D game, teeworlds, running full
screen:
no wm: 220 FPS
metacity --no-composite: 220
metacity --composite: 130
compiz: 218
xcompmgr: 130
compton: 129
I really think that the user's choices would be:
1) compiz, for every PC that supports it,
2) metacity --no-c
And here are some numbers for glxgears again (on another pc), but with xcompmgr
and compton included.
The first column is the WM used, the second is the FPS for glxgears, and the
third the FPS for glxgears -fullscreen:
no wm 221 15
metacity --no-composite 170 15
metacity --composite
I run another set of benchmarks using x11perf.
I don't know how much they can help in pinpointing the issue(s), but they do
show that `metacity --composite` is extremely slower than `metacity
--no-composite` or `compiz`.
I'm attaching the output in LibreOffice Calc format, I think it's more
read
Ah, I forgot to include the results without a window manager as a
comparison:
$ killall metacity & sleep 5 && glxgears -fullscreen & sleep 20 && killall
glxgears
44884 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8976.656 FPS
44905 frames in 5.0 seconds = 8980.993 FPS
Normalized: 118 FPS, the fastest of all.
$ kil
33 matches
Mail list logo
