XO-1.75 relative performance

[Tony Anderson]

It sounds like the XO-1.75 Sugar will not be operable on XO-1 (and 
possibly XO-1.5). I assume there is a clear commitment to continue 
support of Sugar for XO-1 and XO-1.5.

Tony

On 11/07/2011 03:26 AM, devel-request at lists.laptop.org wrote:
> Send Devel mailing list submissions to
> 	devel at lists.laptop.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	devel-request at lists.laptop.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	devel-owner at lists.laptop.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Peter Robinson)
>     2. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Jon Nettleton)
>     3. Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
>        (Simon Schampijer)
>     4. Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1 (Peter Robinson)
>     5. Re: XO-1.75 relative performance (Peter Robinson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 22:19:36 +0000
> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> To: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
> 	<devel at lists.laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALeDE9PHfDegCJ=seyEecnw-MMrb=VzoLhK9ZiZOhwrfBgcfGw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> We are doing some forwards-planing with regards to the XO-1.75. Would
>>> you be able to tell us what kind of performance we can expect from the
>>> graphics driver that you are working on? Would it support 3D hardware
>>> acceleration?
>>
>> Well yes and no. ?The graphics hardware does support 3d acceleration,
>> however currently that is only supported via a binary driver. ?We also
>> don't have all the documentation nor man power to write a 3d driver.
>> The nouveau team has had 3 to 4 people working full time on a driver
>> for almost 4 years and their driver is just getting to a stable usage
>> point for desktop compositing.
>
> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>
>> For a general idea of performance our 3d graphics hardware will run
>> Quake3 at native 1200x900 resolution with medium quality graphics at
>> about 30fps on average.
>>
>>>
>>> We are considering working to get GNOME 3 running, but for that to
>>> work well we'll need some good graphics capabilities.
>>
>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>
> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>
>> The bigger concern I have with targeting a compositing window manager
>> is the amount of RAM that it needs. ?Every window also has a
>> duplicated texture in memory that is used to create the composited
>> display. ?Generally gnome-shell will use 100+MB's of RAM just to
>> display the desktop, and there is no way to tweak around this by using
>> 16-bit colors as everything is an ARGB texture. ?On a machine with 1GB
>> of RAM this isn't so bad, but that is a hefty chunk of memory for a
>> machine with 512MB's of memory. ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>> graphics engine.
>
> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
> different units?
>
>> To sum things up. ?Yes the hardware should have the capabilities to
>> run gnome-shell, again I say should as it is very untested. ?I would
>> not recommend targetting it's use in any future plans unless you have
>> GNOME and Xorg hackers lined up to spend a good chunk of time working
>> on it.
>
> Peter
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome_shell_software_rendering
> [2] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMTI
> [3] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAwNTg
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 17:11:50 -0800
> From: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
> To: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
> 	<devel at lists.laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALHpu37pCRRV5bRZOWw-a7ib+_OpaSDp-WyvtTx_=rCTAUGJ_A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>>
>> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
>> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>
> What have you been using it for? Gnome-shell didn't exist back then.
> They have been incrementally adding features but it has taken time.  I
> have never used nouveau because there has been no power control
> features, not something we I can do without.  I am not trying to say
> something negative on the project, I just think it is a good barometer
> for people to realistically grasp how long it takes to mature modern
> graphics drivers without documentation.
>
>>>
>>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>>
>> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
>> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
>> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
>> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
>> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
>> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
>> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>
> Is this argument for or against GNOME 3?  You point out a lot of
> libraries that require clutter, but none that are hard dependencies of
> GNOME.  I understand a lot of projects are dependant on clutter, but
> none are hard dependencies of the GNOME project.
>
> The use of software rendering via llvm is great, but unfortunately
> that is targeted at modern multi-core processors that have cycles to
> spare.  This does not target at the limited resources an XO has
> available.
>
>>> ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>>> graphics engine.
>>
>> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
>> different units?
>
> Not that I have heard but we will see.  Regardless I don't see any
> justification that would suggest we should target gnome-shell as a
> desktop.
>
> I understand the push to proliferate GNOME, however as Linus and many
> other GNOME expatriates have emphasized it is not the right fit for
> everyone.   I have been a gnome-shell contributor and propenent from
> early on, but I can' t suggest it is a good alternative for limited
> resource computers, when it continually fails me on my quad-core
> desktop with a top of the line video card, which I originally ran the
> nouveau drivers on but had to switch to the binary nvidia drivers
> because it ran the fan at 100% the entire time.
>
> -Jon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:38:23 +0100
> From: Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
> To: devel at lists.laptop.org
> Subject: Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
> Message-ID:<4EB78AEF.5010400 at schampijer.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/04/2011 09:45 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> Martin,
>> In 11.3.0 a few activities didn't include translations because of problems
>> with packaging of the activities.
>> Probably will be a good idea update these activities.
>> I can prepare a list of recommended activities if you want.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>
> Are those really critical items?  I would only do the really really must
> do changes besides any 1.75 bug fixes. Because (a) this release should
> be only about bug fixes in my opinion and (b) preparing/testing/shipping
> this takes time away from our new dev cycle.
>
> Regards,
>      Simon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:36 +0000
> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> To: Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>
> Cc: devel at lists.laptop.org
> Subject: Re: Announcing the development of OLPC OS 11.3.1
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALeDE9O5thCj7WcfUnK+aAg8KhSUecwSrh9MYONXQQDjmfpxTg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Simon Schampijer<simon at schampijer.de>  wrote:
>> On 11/04/2011 09:45 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin,
>>> In 11.3.0 a few activities didn't include translations because of problems
>>> with packaging of the activities.
>>> Probably will be a good idea update these activities.
>>> I can prepare a list of recommended activities if you want.
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>
>> Are those really critical items? ?I would only do the really really must do
>> changes besides any 1.75 bug fixes. Because (a) this release should be only
>> about bug fixes in my opinion and (b) preparing/testing/shipping this takes
>> time away from our new dev cycle.
>
> I think translation updates should be OK but only in the form of
> translations in a dot release of the existing version of Activities we
> ship.
>
> Peter
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:27:24 +0000
> From: Peter Robinson<pbrobinson at gmail.com>
> To: Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Dhanapalan<sridhar at laptop.org.au>, Devel
> 	<devel at lists.laptop.org>
> Subject: Re: XO-1.75 relative performance
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALeDE9Owu1ttnAaSwyGZFyk1aTc-edgECieOogG+C+WH32u8Aw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Jon Nettleton<jon.nettleton at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> nouveau has been very usable for quite some time. I was using it
>>> without issues back in F-12/13 timeframe without too many issues.
>>
>> What have you been using it for? Gnome-shell didn't exist back then.
>> They have been incrementally adding features but it has taken time. ?I
>> have never used nouveau because there has been no power control
>> features, not something we I can do without. ?I am not trying to say
>> something negative on the project, I just think it is a good barometer
>> for people to realistically grasp how long it takes to mature modern
>> graphics drivers without documentation.
>
> Actually it did! It was the first release that Fedora has it in there
> [1] , I packaged all the dependencies [2] as I packaged Moblin 2. It
> worked fine for the testing of Moblin although as you mention the
> power management was limited. My point still remains it was usable a
> lot earlier than the 3-4 years you mentioned. They've also had to
> reverse engineer it without any form of documentation.
>
> The gnome team are working for a minimal subset of implemented
> features for less capable cards so they run faster using SW rendering.
> See some of the links I provided previously.
>
>>>> There should be a distinction between GNOME 3 and gnome-shell.
>>>> Gnome-shell is the only part of GNOME 3 that requires 3D acceleration.
>>>> ?Could our hardware run gnome-shell? ?Well that would take a bit of
>>>> time to figure out. ?To my knowledge nobody has shown gnome-shell
>>>> running with clutter utilizing the OpenGLES backend. ?Last I remember
>>>> clutter didn't support texture from pixmap capabilities with their EGL
>>>> backend, so that may still have to be implemented. ?This may have
>>>> changed in the last couple of months by I have definitely not seen it
>>>> demonstrated or talked about anywhere.
>>>
>>> That's not exactly entirely true. There's a number of other apps that
>>> are making using of clutter through clutter-gtk, clutter-gst or MX.
>>> totem is one of these for example. Also before long gnome is planning
>>> on deprecating non gnome-shell based UXs and concentrating on getting
>>> sofware rendering up to a reasonable speed. We can start testing this
>>> in F-17 as it'll be a feature [1]. Phoronix has more details on
>>> llvmpipe [2] and the gallium3D bits [3]
>>
>> Is this argument for or against GNOME 3? ?You point out a lot of
>> libraries that require clutter, but none that are hard dependencies of
>> GNOME. ?I understand a lot of projects are dependant on clutter, but
>> none are hard dependencies of the GNOME project.
>
> No, its not an argument about gnome 3. Its to point out that
> gnome-shell isn't the only bit of gnome-shell that uses/requires
> 3D/OpenGL GPU functionality. totem is one of them that we use.
>
>> The use of software rendering via llvm is great, but unfortunately
>> that is targeted at modern multi-core processors that have cycles to
>> spare. ?This does not target at the limited resources an XO has
>> available.
>
> I don't disagree, my point is though that this is the way the gnome
> project is going and that its likely fallback mode will soon
> disappear.
>
>>>> ?Oh and that is just system RAM it
>>>> doesn't take into account the memory that is needed for the actual
>>>> graphics engine.
>>>
>>> Aren't the production 1.75s moving to 1Gb of RAM due to pricing of the
>>> different units?
>>
>> Not that I have heard but we will see. ?Regardless I don't see any
>> justification that would suggest we should target gnome-shell as a
>> desktop.
>
> I'm staying we should target gnome-shell, my point is that if we want
> to keep using the gnome desktop in upcoming releases we might not have
> a choice. Read the previous links and you'll actually see the details
> of the point that I raised.
>
>> I understand the push to proliferate GNOME, however as Linus and many
>> other GNOME expatriates have emphasized it is not the right fit for
>> everyone. ? I have been a gnome-shell contributor and propenent from
>> early on, but I can' t suggest it is a good alternative for limited
>> resource computers, when it continually fails me on my quad-core
>> desktop with a top of the line video card, which I originally ran the
>> nouveau drivers on but had to switch to the binary nvidia drivers
>> because it ran the fan at 100% the entire time.
>
> I'm not and have never said its the right and only desktop. On the
> flip side I've not had many issues with gnome-shell in the F-15/16
> timeframe and regularly will suspend/resume my laptop for weeks on end
> without issues now. Moblin/Meego ran quite happily on my original atom
> netbook which is of similar vintage and speed as the XO 1.5 without
> massive issues. I have no doubt issues with some nouveau cards is
> largely due to they are reverse engineered. The ATI and Intel GPUs
> which have published docs don't seem to have nearly the amount of
> issues on the NV based one.
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/12/Everything/source/SRPMS/gnome-shell-2.28.0-3.fc12.src.rpm
> [2] http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/releases/12/Everything/source/SRPMS/mutter-2.28.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
>
> End of Devel Digest, Vol 69, Issue 11
> *************************************
> .
>