----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alon Levy" <al...@redhat.com> > To: "John A. Sullivan III" <jsulli...@opensourcedevel.com> > Cc: spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2011 1:43:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] Unfair comparisons with RDP > On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 07:24:59AM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 12:27 +0200, Alon Levy wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 05:45:34AM -0400, John A. Sullivan III > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 04:56 +0200, Alon Levy wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 09:40:41PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 17:05 +0200, Alon Levy wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 03:00:32PM +0200, Gianluca Cecchi > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, John A. Sullivan III > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interesting observation. That is true; we did not > > > > > > > > > create separate VM > > > > > > > > > definitions for SPICE and TSPlus thus the TSPlus > > > > > > > > > environment is using > > > > > > > > > the QXL driver. Would we expect that to have any > > > > > > > > > "supercharging" effect > > > > > > > > > on RDP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably not, because afaik (that is not so much ;-) > > > > > > > > Remote Desktop > > > > > > > > (and probably tsplus too) works at the GDI call level, > > > > > > > > so it should > > > > > > > > not depend so much on video adapter/video driver... > > > > > > > > It was simply a question that arose analysing how to > > > > > > > > correctly > > > > > > > > replicate comparisons... > > > > > > > > Coming back to the test case and these operations: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rdp > > > > > > > > 17: display desktop, i.e., minimize all open > > > > > > > > applications > > > > > > > > 42: Paint existing LibreOffice document, i.e., restore > > > > > > > > from minimize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spice > > > > > > > > 61: display desktop, i.e., minimize all open > > > > > > > > applications > > > > > > > > 92: Paint existing LibreOffice document, i.e., restore > > > > > > > > from minimize > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think they are GDI ones, so that naturally when using > > > > > > > > rdp they are > > > > > > > > executed locally on client desktop (only the gdi > > > > > > > > directives are sent), > > > > > > > > while in spice (raster?) they will be network intensive > > > > > > > > (from a slow > > > > > > > spice implements a driver, which implements a large part > > > > > > > of the gdi api. So any > > > > > > > operation that it doesn't implement is done via the > > > > > > > windows gdi software rendering > > > > > > > and the result given to the driver (which is spice) as an > > > > > > > image. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in cases where the specific operations are all > > > > > > > implemented by the driver the > > > > > > > performance should be identical. In other cases spice will > > > > > > > be suboptimal, since > > > > > > > it will send the image and not the operation. In both > > > > > > > cases the rendering should > > > > > > > be correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link point of view). > > > > > > > > So probably an optimized rdp could never be beaten on > > > > > > > > too slow links? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ><snip> > > > > > > Hmm . . . I remember you saying that the Windows product was > > > > > > actually > > > > > > more developed than the Linux product. Could it be that you > > > > > > have > > > > > True > > > > > > > > > > > implemented more of the GDI API than the X API (or whatever > > > > > > one uses for > > > > > > Linux) and thus my Linux client is more regularly falling > > > > > > back to > > > > > > sending images rather than directives? > > > > > Client != Guest. A confusion that arises all the time here :) > > > > > The client > > > > > is *using* the graphics api on whatever platform. The linux > > > > > client uses > > > > > pixman mostly. The windows client uses gdi. The gdi canvas (as > > > > > the graphics > > > > > backend for the clients is called) has seen more usage / > > > > > optimization I think, > > > > > so you are not wrong in your conclusion. There are actually > > > > > two different clients > > > > > right now, spicec and any client based on the spice-gtk, such > > > > > as vinagre or spicy. > > > > > Could you try any of the later to see if you get 100% cpu with > > > > > them as well? > > > > <snip> > > > > Sorry - I realize I stated that backwards! However the 100% CPU > > > > problem > > > > is a different one. We are noticing that the Windows server > > > > viewed via > > > > the Debian client is laggard but CPU utilization is fine on both > > > > client > > > > and server. The problem with 100% CPU utilization is when we > > > > have a > > > > Fedora 15 server. > > > by server you mean guest? So this is the driver taking 100% cpu? > > > > > <snip> > > Yes, I hope I have my terminology right. Host is the system running > > KVM, server is the system running on the KVM host, and client is the > > device I am using to see the server by connecting to the host :) If > > there is a more official terminology, do please correct me as the > > right > > vocabulary seems to be one of the most difficult things to master in > > SPICE <grin> > > > The terminology is: > host - machine running vm processes > spice server - part of the vm process. > guest - whatever is running in the vm. > qxl driver - the part of spice running in the guest > spice client - spice viewer, possibly on another machine > > So I was trying to understand if you mean that you were running top on > the host > and seeing the process take 100% cpu, or running top inside the guest > and seeing > X (we are talking about a F15 guest, right?) take 100%. The later > suggests a driver > problem, while the former a server problem (or just a guest doing a > bloody lot of work).
As I understood the problem observed by John - John has F15 guest with KDE4 (I was close to think It was specific for KDE4) and he is observing 100% CPU usage caused by Xorg process on that guest. But That implies High CPU usage on host of qemu process as well indeed. I personally didn't see such high cpu usage - 100% but I can say It is quite high (60-90%) even doing very easy work on guest. I even filed a bug to track that https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38522 (sorry about not mentioning), there are some profiles from sysprof which John kindly provided. So you can take a look:). Soren promised he would take a look at that as I believed It was qxl driver issue but I dunno about progress on that issue and yes I believe client (spicec/spicy) has no impact on that. > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
