On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:20:59 +0200, D (drago01) wrote:
>
>> > with NO (!) disable-culling stuff but just these extra rectangles, and
>> > so far I cannot reproduce any issues.
>>
>> That's because "CLUTTER_PAINT=redraws" does disable cull
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:20:59 +0200, D (drago01) wrote:
> > with NO (!) disable-culling stuff but just these extra rectangles, and
> > so far I cannot reproduce any issues.
>
> That's because "CLUTTER_PAINT=redraws" does disable culling and
> clipped redraws (i.e same as the workaround).
Then wha
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:37:17 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
>
>> Note the second-to-last comment on the bug is a request for info which
>> no-one has provided so far:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605#c40
>>
>> "it would h
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:37:17 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
> Note the second-to-last comment on the bug is a request for info which
> no-one has provided so far:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605#c40
>
> "it would help if somebody tested using:
>
> export CLUTTER_PAINT=redraws
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 11:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:31:08 +0200, D (drago01) wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
> > >
> > >> you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
> > >> the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
>
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 20:52 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:45:37 -0500, MC (Mike) wrote:
>
> > If haven't already, new kernel is built without debugging and does
> > indeed seem to be more responsive and faster.
> >
> >
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?bu
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:45:37 -0500, MC (Mike) wrote:
> If haven't already, new kernel is built without debugging and does
> indeed seem to be more responsive and faster.
>
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=263263
Certainly much faster, also during the boot procedure.
Sti
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 11:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> That is acceptable. Afterall, it's just a work-around.
>
> If a fix were implemented, that would be better, of course. The defective
> behaviour without the work-around is inacceptable as it leads to too much
> damage in windows, not
dows, not limited to editing text. Even larger corruption,
> such as: http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/tmp/fedora-clutter-bug-720605.png
Yeah I know ... just pointed that out because it feels somehow odd to
suggest something like that in a thread called "F16 slowness" (because
it makes it even slower).
But yeah we should just fix that bug
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:31:08 +0200, D (drago01) wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
> >
> >> you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
> >> the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
> >> (In the 2.6.40 builds, this is only on in the -debug flavor)
> >>
>
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 10:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:21:41 +0200, MS (Michael) wrote:
>
> > With yesterday's updates it's slowest of all so far. "xterm -e mc" window
> > resize test takes 53 seconds to redraw up to full vertical size.
> > It takes approx. 4 secs alre
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
>
>> you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
>> the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
>> (In the 2.6.40 builds, this is only on in the -debug flavor)
>>
>> Debuggi
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:21:41 +0200, MS (Michael) wrote:
> With yesterday's updates it's slowest of all so far. "xterm -e mc" window
> resize test takes 53 seconds to redraw up to full vertical size.
> It takes approx. 4 secs already for MC to redraw for the first time.
> That's just the most obvio
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:18:48 -0500, MC (Mike) wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 11:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > I think Michael was testing the "slub_debug=-" parameter.
> >
> > In the bug report, I noted that I recompiled rc5 with debugging disabled
> > and it does indeed clear up all th
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 11:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think Michael was testing the "slub_debug=-" parameter.
>
> In the bug report, I noted that I recompiled rc5 with debugging disabled
> and it does indeed clear up all the performance problems. Seems like the
> debugging overhead got a
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 12:06 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 12:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
> >
> > > you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
> > > the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
> > > (I
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 12:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
>
> > you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
> > the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
> > (In the 2.6.40 builds, this is only on in the -debug flavor)
> >
> >
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:46:21 -0400, DJ (Dave) wrote:
> you can turn off some of the heavier weight debugging by booting
> the 3.0 kernels with "slub_debug=-"
> (In the 2.6.40 builds, this is only on in the -debug flavor)
>
> Debugging options are going to be turned off for the next builds
> in tim
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 10:08 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I'm nearly sure it wasn't.
>
> There have been two xserver updates between the 2011-05-11 snapshot and
> now. In a quick review of the changes in that interval I can only find
> one change that looks even remotely like a performance improv
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 13:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Debugging options are going to be turned off for the next builds
> > in time for the beta.
>
> Was debugging on in 3.0.1-3 ? For me, that kernel performs (graphically)
> significantly better than any 3.1 kernel. I haven't tried 3.0.1-5
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 15:46 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:07:48PM -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
>
> > Below are 4 kernels that I have tested to see what works ok and what
> > don't. The 2 3.0 kernels both were extremely slow, and the 2 2.6.40
> > kernels were both faster
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 11:37 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrot
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:07:48PM -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Below are 4 kernels that I have tested to see what works ok and what
> don't. The 2 3.0 kernels both were extremely slow, and the 2 2.6.40
> kernels were both faster and more responsive. Using the latest 2.6.40
> does still hav
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:07:48 -0500, MC (Mike) wrote:
> > > Okay, different bug then. What graphics card?
> >
> > Radeon HD 4350. Using a 2.6.40 kernel (might try a 3.0 kernel that is
> > lil older) helps speed it up a whole lot.
>
>
> Below are 4 kernels that I have tested to see what works ok
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 11:37 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrot
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:30 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> See email sent previous to this, but changing to a 2.6.40 (did a
> f15-->f16 yum upgrade) that was used from my F15 system seems to make it
> run lot faster now. Not sure if the rendering part is all fixed or not,
> but nowhere near as slo
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
> > > > Adam Willi
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:15 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
> Looking at the bug report[1] knurd mentioned, I'll try a kernel 2.6.40
> to see, what happens.
2.6.40 is just 3.0 with the versioning munged for backwards
compatibility. If you want to start from a 'known-more-or-less-good'
base kernel ve
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
> > > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:31 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
> > > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:15 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
> I didn't intend to run this on a daily basis whining about 5% loss,
> hooraying for each win. I just tried to get nearer to this problem.
> I'm pretty sure, nearly nobody would notice 10% deviation.
>
> Looking at the bug report[1] knurd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/11 16:08, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> I'm nearly sure it wasn't.
>
> There have been two xserver updates between the 2011-05-11 snapshot
> and now. In a quick review of the changes in that interval I can
> only find one change that looks even r
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605 , which is
> > > being worked on, and has workarou
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:39:52 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> it should be easy to check: just try the workaround from the bug report.
> If that fixes it, that's the problem you're having.
It would have been before my computer died :-). The one I'm
using now can't do 3D at all in f16 :-(.
--
test
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:32 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605 , which is
> > being worked on, and has workarounds.
>
> I'm not sure it is that bug. That one talks about things not
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:28:26 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720605 , which is
> being worked on, and has workarounds.
I'm not sure it is that bug. That one talks about things not
rendering at all, what I see is a annoying and perceptible
delay be
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 12:42 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:04:00 +0200
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Next on my testing todo list is to compare with Openbox again.
>
> I have seen no slowness, but my f16 system can't do 3D, so
> I get the fallback gnome 2 (sorta) session with
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:29 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 07/09/11 21:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Is there a graphics benchmark to try out?
> >
> > I don't see that a benchmark is going to tell you anything you
> > don't already know ('it's performing slow'). I'd suggest grabbing a
> > set
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 18:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 2) Claws Mail folder summary view reacts slowly. A normal single
> left-button mouse-click on the vertical scrollbar does not just page
> up once but several times, no matter how briefly I try to click the
> mouse button. Only way to avo
Dne 8.9.2011 18:04, Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:32:28 -0400, AL (Andy) wrote:
>
>> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form normal
>> to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly choppy desktop until
>> reloaded (ALT+F2; r). No interes
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:04:00 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Next on my testing todo list is to compare with Openbox again.
I have seen no slowness, but my f16 system can't do 3D, so
I get the fallback gnome 2 (sorta) session with no compositing
going on. It is definitely worth giving a try to som
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:32:28 -0400, AL (Andy) wrote:
> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form normal
> to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly choppy desktop until
> reloaded (ALT+F2; r). No interesting output in dmesg or messages.
1) xterm + mc suffer
Matthias Runge wrote on 07.09.2011 08:37:
> On 05/09/11 21:54, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively
>>> goes form normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a
>>> fairly choppy d
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 09:29 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 07/09/11 21:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Is there a graphics benchmark to try out?
> >
> > I don't see that a benchmark is going to tell you anything you
> > don't already know ('it's performing slow'). I'd suggest grabbing a
> > set
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 14:54 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form
>> > normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/09/11 21:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Is there a graphics benchmark to try out?
>
> I don't see that a benchmark is going to tell you anything you
> don't already know ('it's performing slow'). I'd suggest grabbing a
> set of older kernel build
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 08:37 +0200, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 05/09/11 21:54, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes
> >> form normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/09/11 21:54, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>
>> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes
>> form normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly
>> choppy
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 14:54 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >
> > Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form
> > normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly choppy
> > desktop until reloaded (A
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 13:32 -0400, Andy Lawrence wrote:
>
>
> Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form
> normal to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly choppy
> desktop until reloaded (ALT+F2; r). No interesting output in dmesg or
> messages.
Might be
I can confirm this as well.
But, I have two kernels: kernel-3.0.1-5.fc16.i686 and
kernel-3.1.0-0.rc4.git0.0.fc16.i686
The system works much slower with 3.1.0-0.rc4.git0.0 then with 3.0.1-5.fc16,
especially 2D graphics
is much slower.
I am waiting for the normal kernel (not the git one) and if t
Something is going on with gnome-shell. Mine progressively goes form normal
to 50% CPU, over a few hours. End result is a fairly choppy desktop until
reloaded (ALT+F2; r). No interesting output in dmesg or messages.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admi
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 10:41 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Hmm I can't replicate on my system.. so lets see if we can figure this out
>
> 1) Does this happen in a non-X environment?
Hadn't tried that, will on next install.
> 2) Does anything occur in dmesg, /var/log/messages or .xsession
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 10:41 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/show?uuid=pub_24333163-6646-44e4-9539-871cab74d85+
>
> Hmm something seems to be wrong or missing. Doesn't come up.
Try this..
http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/client/show_all/pub_24333163-6646-44e4-
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:06, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Welp, I reported before when had KDE installed that my system was slow
> to respond when opening programs, maneuvering through emails, browsing,
> etc...
>
> Well I installed the Live desktop spin from 9/04 with gnome this time,
> and it was wor
-
From: test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases
Sent: Mon Sep 05 12:37:32 2011
Subject: Re: F16 slowness
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 12:21 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 12:06 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > Welp, I report
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 12:21 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 12:06 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > Welp, I reported before when had KDE installed that my system was slow
> > to respond when opening programs, maneuvering through emails, browsing,
> > etc...
> >
> ...
>
> Please run top
On 09/05/2011 12:06 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Welp, I reported before when had KDE installed that my system was slow
> to respond when opening programs, maneuvering through emails, browsing,
> etc...
>
...
Please run top and see what if any processes are hogging CPU or memory ...
--
test mail
Welp, I reported before when had KDE installed that my system was slow
to respond when opening programs, maneuvering through emails, browsing,
etc...
Well I installed the Live desktop spin from 9/04 with gnome this time,
and it was worse. I would be in a CLI (gnome-terminal) and just typing
"ls*
59 matches
Mail list logo
