Re: Results on Claasen's -nocairo patches

["Matt Hoosier" <mwhoosier gmail com>]

On 7/13/06, Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 09:01 -0500, Matt Hoosier wrote:
>
> > I've done a little bit of benchmarking using the attached program (be
>
> This program makes the same mistake as gtk-perf: it sends the drawing
> requests, but doesn't wait for the X server to actually perform them.
> So you are essentially profiling Cairo and Xlib.  You aren't seeing
> things like "the X server takes 50% of the CPU time while the benchmark
> is running".

Thanks for taking a look at the program.

> If you download the gtk+ sources, check out
> gtk+/perf/gtkwidgetprofiler.h.  It has the machinery needed to wait for
> the server to actually process your requests.

Okay, done. After some refactoring a little bit (e.g., remove the idle
function which was driving the redrawing -- gtkwidgetprofiler's
harness already calls triggers expose events anyway ), I get the
following:

before patches:
 0.0170269 sec average over 200 expose handler invocations

after patches:
 0.0134765 sec average over 200 expose handler invocations

This is roughly the same ratio as when the drawing was done (before)
asynchronously.

> Manu Cornet (on the CC line) is my student for the Summer of Code, and
> he's writing a torture test for theme engines that uses
> GtkWidgetProfiler appropriately.  This can be used both as a benchmark,
> and also a way to ensure the robustness of theme engines.
>
>   Federico