[Sugar-devel] [Dextrose] [PATCH v5 sugar] Pulsing icon delayed by 5 seconds or so SL#2080

[James Cameron]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:15:01PM +0530, Anurag Chowdhury wrote:
> I carried out the same benchmark test, which I earlier conducted on an
> XO-1.5, on a XO-1.  And I have attached the log files obtained in both
> the cases.

I have reviewed them.  Can you show me the patch you used for benchmark
test?  I re-read the code from launcher.py, pulsingicon.py in sugar.git,
down to icon.py in sugar-toolkit.git, but wasn't able to figure out
where you might have added that benchmark timing.  Without it, I don't
understand what you are measuring, and so I don't understand the result.

> And found my assertion of XO-1.5 being a faster system in parameters
> of the pulsing icon rendering also i found out the delay of the first
> frame to be nearly 1.5 secs on XO-1 as compared to 0.8 secs on XO-1.5.
> also the consecutive times taken for the rendering of the frames on
> the XO-1 were much larger as compared to that on a XO-1.5. 

Yes, it seems to be a CPU task, not a graphics task, that you have
removed by your proposed patch.

> Hence, the above taken log results verify that XO-1.5 has better
> system performance in case of graphic rendering than XO-1.

Graphics rendering, yes.  Graphics performance, no.  I'm so sorry, all
this time I thought you were talking about graphics performance, but now
I see you are addressing a graphics rendering issue.

> And shipping the update function call for the first frame reduces the
> delay by nearly 1.5secs on an XO-1 and by 0.8 secs on XO-1.5.

So Bernie's questions in the bug spark my curiosity as well ... why is
it that the first frame is slower to render than the other frames?

(An unrelated side-issue ... the launcher is stealing CPU cycles from
the startup of the activity, the task run queue shows this during a
launch.  I wonder if activities might start up faster if there was no
launcher, just a busy cursor.)

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/