Re: [Texmacs-dev] Two fixes for delayed execution

[Gubinelli Massimiliano]

Hi,

On 13 oct. 09, at 22:32, Norbert Nemec wrote:

> In fact, I found a clear measurement that indicates a problem:
>
> Running TeXmacs/Qt on my fairly modern notebook (fully optimized  
> compile).
>
> I fill one page with plain text. Now simply moving through the text  
> with the right arrow (no editing!) brings up the CPU load to 100%.  
> Of this, 95% are spent in the X server. TeXmacs itself only takes 5%  
> of the CPU power.

I can confirm this observation. In my ubuntu virtual machine  
(VirtualBox/MacOSX) the above protocol gives \sim 75% CPU load to Xorg  
and \sim 23% to texmacs. You should check that you do not use cairo  
since at the moment the cairo rendering is slightly unoptimal in QT  
(explicit and naive double-buffer).
On my mac the load remains reasonable (30% which should include the  
GUI load also since the total CPU load is not much higher).

Proprer implementation of check_event require knowing if there are  
pending key events in the queue and this is not possible in Qt (or  
even in Cocoa). Moderns GUI API explicitly discurage looking at the  
event queue so we should design a different mechanism to reimplement  
what it is currently done in the X11 port.


best
max


> I tried activating the code in check_event. The display is  
> incomplete now, but the CPU load is down to 30% and TeXmacs feels  
> fully reactive.

> Seems like this optimization is crucial not only for slow machines  
> after all...




> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
> Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 05:14:02PM +0200, Álvaro Tejero Cantero  
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't notice any problems, but TeXmacs-QT feels slower already  
> > > when
> > > typing at the end of 3-line paragraphs.
> >
> > That is shortcoming of the current Qt version:
> > interrupts during the rendering phase have not yet been implemented.
> > Now that delayed_event has become cleaner, maybe Max can fix that  
> > one too.
> >
> >
> > > Is there any more quantitative way to test performance?
> >
> > This is rather a matter of reactivity. Hard to measure.
> >
> > Best wishes, --Joris
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Texmacs-dev mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev