Canonical's Daniel Van Vugt Continues Squeezing More Performance Out Of GNOME 3.36

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Canonical's Daniel Van Vugt Continues Squeezing More Performance Out Of GNOME 3.36

Canonical's Daniel Van Vugt continues focusing on GNOME performance optimizations and this past week still managed to squeeze another optimization out of the near-final GNOME 3.36...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Van-Vugt-More-GNOME-3.36-Perf

[Awesomeness]

Fun part is that other devs did more performance work than vanvugt during the 3.35 releases.

That's how Canonical rolls: Claim credit for work others (usually Red Hat) did.

[SWY1985]

It's looking really good. I've been away from Gnome for about a year now, so I tried it again this week. I found myself adding extensions to turn off animations, add tiling support (gTile), get the menu bar out of the way (heavily configured dash-to-panel), reconfigure all keyboard shortcuts.... and the end result was something somewhat usable but too annoying to use. Turns out, I just want my tiling manager back.

I still love Gnome, but I've been spoiled by the simplicity of sway. I'm afraid I'll never be able to get back to a full desktop enviroment.

[ernstp]

Fun part is that other devs did more performance work than vanvugt during the 3.35 releases.

Just tested F32 devel. Old machine, virtualization. Gnome-shell is 71 MiB, CPU% flat on 0-1%.

RedHat devs did a lot of work for the sw-rendering (llvmpipe etc.) / DisplayLink usecases. It's a limited scope, but it looks like they improved that a lot.

[Britoid]

Awesomeness Canonical is VERY careful to not do anything like this. All links are to Canonical work.
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/boost...tu-19-10/13095

That page is implying that Canonical sets the direction of GNOME Shell development.

So if anything, it backs up Awesomeness's comment.

[brent]

This is pretty cool, I wasn't even aware that gnome-shell would render pretty much everything offscreen first. That is incredibly wasteful in terms of fill rate and overall GPU utilization. Worst case it'll double the required fill rate. I'm sure this optimization will help a lot on weak iGPUs combined with high-res (e.g. 4K) screens. It might also noticeably improve battery life.

That said, I don't think it makes sense any more at this point to argue who is doing more perf work. Quite a few people are working on improved performance nowadays. I'm just glad this is finally being done. GNOME developers ignored and downplayed performance issues for years and fortunately that has stopped.

I don't like that Canonical's work is being belittled here, nonetheless. They've certainly kickstarted this focus on performance in GNOME.

[tuxd3v]

That's how Canonical rolls: Claim credit for work others (usually Red Hat) did.

I see a lot of hate by some bystanders..
Canonical is the company that have done most for the desktop advances and ideas of today, and yet, a lot of people criticize them..
Amazing..

[sheepdestroyer]

Why are future plans for GNOME development being written on a non-GNOME site by a non-GNOME developer?

You are being unfair. I am usually happy to troll on how Canonical has been until recently quite uncooperative but, now that they are helping on common projects, they should be able to brag about their own efforts where they please.
To quote the link that you report on :

In this article we will describe some of the improvements contributed by Canonical, how the problems were surprising, how they were approached and what other performance work is coming in future.

[Britoid]

I see a lot of hate by some bystanders..
Canonical is the company that have done most for the desktop advances and ideas of today, and yet, a lot of people criticize them..
Amazing..

Point proven.

All that Canonical work on GTK, dbus, PulseAudio, Xorg, Wayland etc.

[brent]

Seriously, what kind of problem do some people have with Canonical? Do you seriously expect them to do as much development work as Red Hat? Red Hat is around 30x bigger (in terms of revenue and number of employees) than Canonical. Given the resources that Canonical has, they've done stellar work of pushing Desktop Linux forward.