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, please ignore my results in comment #11.
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: 473.248 xenial-metacity --no-composite: 294.148 xenial-metacity --composite: 177.516 fixed-metacity --no-composite: 470.791 fixed-metacity --composite: 283.285 marco --no-composite: 471.382 marco --composite: 286.939 xcompmgr: 291.370 I also confirmed the performance increase in the i5 desktop from comment #5. @Alberts, thank you very much, you're awesome! @Dmitry, could we please get those patches in Xenial? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to metacity in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1566157 Title: Metacity's compositing is too slow Status in metacity package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: I did the following benchmarks between `metacity --no-composite`, `metacity --composite`, and `compiz`, in Ubuntu 16.04. First, I disabled vsync: $ cat ~/.drirc <device screen="0" driver="dri2"> <application name="Default"> <option name="vblank_mode" value="0"/> </application> </device> Then I ran glxgears as follows: $ metacity --no-composite --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 29564 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5912.721 FPS 29729 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5945.777 FPS $ metacity --composite --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 10366 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2073.057 FPS 10194 frames in 5.0 seconds = 2038.702 FPS $ compiz --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 37633 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7522.813 FPS 37990 frames in 5.0 seconds = 7597.965 FPS As a second set of benchmarks, I ran glxgears -fullscreen as follows: $ metacity --no-composite --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears -fullscreen & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 1652 frames in 5.0 seconds = 330.296 FPS 1667 frames in 5.0 seconds = 333.281 FPS $ metacity --composite --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears -fullscreen & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 886 frames in 5.0 seconds = 177.007 FPS 891 frames in 5.0 seconds = 178.099 FPS $ compiz --replace & sleep 5 && glxgears -fullscreen & sleep 20 && killall glxgears 1830 frames in 5.0 seconds = 365.868 FPS 1847 frames in 5.0 seconds = 369.242 FPS Normalized results (with compiz=100): ================================ Windowed: metacity --no-composite: 78 FPS metacity --composite: 27 FPS compiz: 100 FPS Full screen: metacity --no-composite: 90 FPS metacity --composite: 48 FPS compiz: 100 FPS So `metacity --composite` in this test was about 2 times slower than `metacity --no-composite` and about 3 times slower than `compiz`. This test was done an "Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4440 CPU @ 3.10GHz" CPU, with the following embedded graphics card: $ lspci -nn -k | grep -A 2 VGA 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v3/4th Gen Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller [8086:0412] (rev 06) Subsystem: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd Xeon E3-1200 v3/4th Gen Core Processor Integrated Graphics Controller [1458:d000] Kernel driver in use: i915 I'll upload more tests if I find anything newsworthy. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
