| 2016-12-21 04:12:46 |
Daniel van Vugt |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2016-12-21 06:55:49 |
Daniel van Vugt |
description |
Nested fullscreen interval 0 clients in Mir 0.25.0 had higher latency than interval 1 nested fullscreen clients.
I've reproduced this a couple of times and it is concerning:
Interval 0: 81ms
Interval 1: 64ms
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RbTVDbx04ohkF4-md3wAlgmxbSI1DttstnT6xdcXhZQ/pubchart?oid=1566479835&format=interactive
Although this regression appears to be resolved in the 0.26 series (lp:mir) it's serious enough that we should look into finding what the cause was so that Mir 0.25.1 can get the same fix. |
Nested fullscreen interval 0 clients in Mir 0.25.0 had higher latency than interval 1 nested fullscreen clients.
I've reproduced this a couple of times and it is concerning:
Interval 0: 81ms
Interval 1: 64ms
It's the obvious green spike in this chart:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RbTVDbx04ohkF4-md3wAlgmxbSI1DttstnT6xdcXhZQ/pubchart?oid=1566479835&format=interactive
Although this regression appears to be resolved in the 0.26 series (lp:mir) it's serious enough that we should look into finding what the cause was so that Mir 0.25.1 can get the same fix. |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:06:42 |
Daniel van Vugt |
nominated for series |
|
mir/0.25 |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:06:42 |
Daniel van Vugt |
bug task added |
|
mir/0.25 |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:06:48 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir: milestone |
0.25.1 |
0.26.0 |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:06:51 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir/0.25: milestone |
|
0.25.1 |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:06:54 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir/0.25: importance |
Undecided |
Medium |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:07:01 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir: assignee |
|
Kevin DuBois (kdub) |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:07:04 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir: status |
New |
Fix Committed |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:12:17 |
Daniel van Vugt |
tags |
performance |
nested performance |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:24:38 |
Daniel van Vugt |
summary |
Nested fullscreen interval 0 clients in Mir 0.25.0 had higher latency than interval 1 |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for interval 0 clients higher |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:24:46 |
Daniel van Vugt |
tags |
nested performance |
nested performance regression |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:30:53 |
Daniel van Vugt |
summary |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for interval 0 clients higher |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for fullscreen interval 0 clients (e.g. games and benchmarks) higher |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:35:24 |
Daniel van Vugt |
summary |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for fullscreen interval 0 clients (e.g. games and benchmarks) higher |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for fullscreen interval 0 clients (e.g. games and benchmarks) higher than without nested passthrough |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:36:05 |
Daniel van Vugt |
summary |
[regression] Nested passthrough made latency for fullscreen interval 0 clients (e.g. games and benchmarks) higher than without nested passthrough |
[regression] Latency for fullscreen interval 0 clients (e.g. games and benchmarks) increased with the introduction of nested passthrough |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:37:55 |
Daniel van Vugt |
description |
Nested fullscreen interval 0 clients in Mir 0.25.0 had higher latency than interval 1 nested fullscreen clients.
I've reproduced this a couple of times and it is concerning:
Interval 0: 81ms
Interval 1: 64ms
It's the obvious green spike in this chart:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RbTVDbx04ohkF4-md3wAlgmxbSI1DttstnT6xdcXhZQ/pubchart?oid=1566479835&format=interactive
Although this regression appears to be resolved in the 0.26 series (lp:mir) it's serious enough that we should look into finding what the cause was so that Mir 0.25.1 can get the same fix. |
Nested fullscreen interval 0 clients in Mir 0.25.0 had higher latency than interval 1 nested fullscreen clients.
I've reproduced this a couple of times and it is concerning:
Mir 0.25:
Interval 0: 81ms <-- regression
Interval 1: 64ms <-- improvement
Mir 0.24:
Interval 0: 70ms
Interval 1: 96ms
It's the obvious green spike in this chart:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RbTVDbx04ohkF4-md3wAlgmxbSI1DttstnT6xdcXhZQ/pubchart?oid=1566479835&format=interactive
Although this regression appears to be resolved in the 0.26 series (lp:mir) it's serious enough that we should look into finding what the cause was so that Mir 0.25.1 can get the same fix. |
|
| 2016-12-21 07:40:17 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir/0.25: status |
New |
Triaged |
|
| 2017-01-25 06:48:16 |
Daniel van Vugt |
bug task added |
|
mir (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2017-01-25 17:22:22 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:~ci-train-bot/mir/mir-ubuntu-zesty-2369 |
|
| 2017-02-01 22:13:22 |
Launchpad Janitor |
mir (Ubuntu): status |
New |
Fix Released |
|
| 2017-02-02 03:22:47 |
Daniel van Vugt |
mir: status |
Fix Committed |
Fix Released |
|
| 2017-06-05 11:01:50 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:~ci-train-bot/mir/mir-ubuntu-xenial-2736 |
|
| 2017-06-05 11:02:25 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:~ci-train-bot/mir/mir-ubuntu-yakkety-2783.1 |
|
| 2017-06-05 13:46:31 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:~ci-train-bot/mir/mir-ubuntu-yakkety-2783 |
|
