Re: gtk+ and gtk-engines slow

[Bruce Stephens <bruce cenderis demon co uk>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx> writes:

> > and BOTH benefit from caching. I HIGHLY suggest you go and actually
> > AUDIT the cache some day. I have done this. It does infact help.
> > Pimxpas tith refcounts > 0 AND pixmaps that go form 0 refcoutn to 1
> > again frequently.
> 
> This is not the case for a typical GNOME application.
> 
> Show me a GNOME application that exhibits this behaviour with the
> regular theme (as the pixmap theme now always forces the imlib
> setting regardless of what GNOME wants).

That's how things seem to me, too.  Running with the pixmap theme
doesn't look like it's going to be happy on low-spec machines.  With
pixmap caching on, my X server went to 20M or more, and without it,
things got a bit slow.

But memory usage with the default theme looks OK with or without
caching.  The X server is about 10M, and GNOME applications are 3 or
4M, of which about 2.5M is shared.  Presumably the applications will
grow a bit (even gnumeric is only 5M, 3M shared), but even so, a 32M
machine ought to be comfortably usable at this rate.  Even 16M
probably wouldn't be that horrible, especially if the 2.2 kernel has
improved swapping performance.

So, we need to know what the effect of the cache is on typical GNOME
applications.  I suspect not very much in performance terms---I didn't
really notice a difference.  It appears that applications are about
0.5M bigger when the cache is switched on, but I may have changed
something else in the meantime by accident.