Originally posted by Andrecorreia
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Running The Latest GNOME Wayland Shell On Fedora 20
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by edoantonioco View PostIt should be compared with Mir. That would be interesting
When both native Mir and native Wayland software appears (and hopefully that software runs on both), Mir should be compared to Wayland.
Comparing a compatibility layer with a native display stack is apples and oranges.
Comment
-
There is something strange with these benchmarks. I imagine that some driver optimization or something else is perturbing the results.
For example the last test has 57.86 fps on X, and 50.38 fps on Fedora XWayland + Gnome.
This looks strange, because in theory, the main different should be an additional copy in XWayland case, and it shouldn't be more than 2-3 fps here.
And a similar test I did makes me think it is a driver optimization.
I have tested XWayland vs XWayland + AsyncSwap (avoid the additional copy) on my dedicated card (Amd hd 7730m) on an embedded compositor running under Prime (compositor copy + XWayland copy / no XWayland copy (if AsyncSwap)).
Each time I restart the computer between the tests.
It gives:
Reaction Quake 3 1.0 Beta - pts/reaction-1.0.4 (Resolution 1920x1080)
Embedded Weston compositor + AsyncSwap:
Code:Test Results: 53.2 53.3 53.8 Average: 53.43 Frames Per Second Minimum: 53.2 Maximum: 53.8
Code:Test Results: 49.8 50 42 41.7 41.4 41.6 Average: 44.42 Frames Per Second Minimum: 41.4 Maximum: 50
Code:Test Results: 52,1 42,1 43,9 44 43,9 44 Average: 45,17 Frames Per Second Minimum: 43,1 Maximum: 52,1
Since here we compare two copies(Gnome (no compositing bypass) + XWayland) vs one (bare X (no prime)), I can't held imagine we see a similar optimization issue here (even if Michael benchmarks are on an intel card and not an AMD card as I tested)
Comment
-
Could somebody explain to me why individual applications need to be ported to Wayland?
I thought applications use things like QT and GTK or OpenGL and SDL?
Isn't it the toolkits and OpenGL/SDL that just need to be ported? (Is OpenGL in mesa? SDL?)
Comment
-
Originally posted by RoboJ1M View PostCould somebody explain to me why individual applications need to be ported to Wayland?
I thought applications use things like QT and GTK or OpenGL and SDL?
Isn't it the toolkits and OpenGL/SDL that just need to be ported? (Is OpenGL in mesa? SDL?)
If in the application A you call something from GLX or other X related code, then you need to port that code away from X before run nicely on Wayland.
If you have not hidden X dependencies then yes, a ported toolkit should be enough.
Comment
-
Originally posted by r_a_trip View PostErhm, no. XWayland, what is tested here, should be compared with XMir. As it stands, both have an overhead penalty over native X.org.
When both native Mir and native Wayland software appears (and hopefully that software runs on both), Mir should be compared to Wayland.
Comparing a compatibility layer with a native display stack is apples and oranges.
Comment
-
so, there are currently 2 copies involved? because ...
A) xwayland currently does not handle unredirect and ...
B) mutter-wayland does not currently optimize for fullscreen (change scanout buffer or use overlays)
also, i don't see any -O flags in the compiler arguments .. are you sure at least -O2 is enabled?
Comment
Comment