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 readable that way. An example line from the attached .ods file: Test: 500x500 tiled rectangle (17x15 tile) no WM: 772 (100 %) metacity --no-composite: 699 (91%) metacity --composite: 233 (30 %) compiz: 688 (89 %) The numbers are the repetitions, and inside the parentheses are the normalized values, with 100% being the highest. The others are about 90% efficient, while `metacity --composite` is only 30% efficient, three times slower in that test. I can also create a similar .ods for gtkperf, if anyone thinks that it will somehow help. ** Attachment added: "x11perf.ods" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/metacity/+bug/1566157/+attachment/4624852/+files/x11perf.ods -- 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
