Searched hist:f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 (Results 1 – 6 of 6) sorted by relevance
| /haiku/src/tests/servers/app/newClipping/ | ||
| H A D | MyView.cpp | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |
| H A D | main.cpp | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |
| HD | Clipping.proj | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |
| /haiku/src/tests/servers/app/newerClipping/ | ||
| H A D | main.cpp | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |
| H A D | ViewLayer.cpp | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |
| H A D | Desktop.cpp | f51806635b24d7b95ef5ccadc07a958ecd5d3ca5 Sun Nov 27 00:18:08 UTC 2005 Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@gmx.de> stress testing. It shows that for 40 open windows, the newerClipping design takes 3.5 times less time in the root layer thread compared to the newClipping design. On average, it is about 8.7 times faster. The goal of the redesign, to move the heavier computation from the root layer thread into each window thread, seems achieved, since even with 100 open windows, moving a window does not start any lagging. By removing the global dirty region in Desktop, I think this can be further improved. |