Bug 120595 - Long post-processing time after file open compared to LibO 5.4
Summary: Long post-processing time after file open compared to LibO 5.4
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
6.2.0.0.alpha0+
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) Windows (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: perf
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2018-10-14 21:24 UTC by Telesto
Modified: 2019-05-08 14:03 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments
Screenshot Very Sleepy 10 seconds profile (62.43 KB, image/png)
2018-11-15 12:54 UTC, Telesto
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Telesto 2018-10-14 21:24:30 UTC
Description:
Long post-processing time after file open (icu_62::RuleBasedBreakIterator::handleNext)

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open Writer
2. Disable automatic spell checking
3. Open https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NPXKo2nsfn9steLOw1AuWvZxQE21wT-n (bug 115757)
4. Wait until CPU drops to near 0%

Actual Results:
It takes 1:15 to process with 6.2


Expected Results:
At least 55 seconds with 5.4 (and 5.0). Ideally faster of course :-)


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: No



Additional Info:
Version: 6.2.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: b63d48a146c3615f56b6ec83361b3c02ebcbb215
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2018-10-13_23:33:20
Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: CL
Comment 1 Xavier Van Wijmeersch 2018-10-15 07:39:03 UTC
no repro only 32.2 seconds to open document of 761 pages

maybe only windows, changing hardware if you not disagree

Version: 6.2.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: ba6723431afa843232fadf44e12ddab44e85c9f0
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.14; UI render: default; VCL: kde4; 
Locale: nl-BE (en_US.UTF-8); Calc: threaded
build 14-10-2018
Comment 2 Xisco Faulí 2018-11-15 12:37:37 UTC
Hi Telesto,
is this issue still reproducible in master ?
Comment 3 Telesto 2018-11-15 12:54:48 UTC
Created attachment 146666 [details]
Screenshot Very Sleepy 10 seconds profile

Still the same
Version: 6.2.0.0.alpha1+
Build ID: 397dd8a5f7694540f31f32759c2c915d63506ccd
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: GL; VCL: win; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2018-11-07_23:58:04
Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: CL
Comment 4 Telesto 2018-11-24 13:53:24 UTC
Same issue different way of illustrating:

1. Open attachment 140185 [details] (bug 116068)
2. Press Print after opening -> And wait a long long time.
Comment 5 Dieter 2019-05-07 20:06:57 UTC
I confirm it with steps from comment 4 and

Version: 6.3.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 421e6fc3cd2e6fe37afbef341e2d0ad7b8edde37
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: GL; VCL: win; 
TinderBox: Win-x86_64@42, Branch:master, Time: 2019-04-07_01:12:58
Locale: en-US (de_DE); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded

Result: 1:30
Comment 6 Xisco Faulí 2019-05-08 11:25:35 UTC
it takes

real	0m54,885s
user	0m50,519s
sys	0m4,217s

in

Version: 6.3.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 299e34275574d4fa0d9b175231f5cfdbb49c4f4c
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; 
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded

following steps from comment 4

while in

Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha1+
Build ID: 5b168b3fa568e48e795234dc5fa454bf24c9805e
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Linux 4.15; UI Render: default; 
Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8)

it takes

real	1m8,750s
user	1m4,789s
sys	0m3,506s

at least on linux it's even faster...
Comment 7 Telesto 2019-05-08 14:03:54 UTC
(In reply to Telesto from comment #4)
> Same issue different way of illustrating:
> 
> 1. Open attachment 140185 [details] (bug 116068)
> 2. Press Print after opening -> And wait a long long time.

No repro
Version: 6.3.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 91b2239783dc716bd71ce7962bfd7e341dfe4175
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: default; VCL: win; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2019-05-08_09:49:32
Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); UI-Language: en-US
Calc: threaded

Comment 0 is likely same as bug 112989 (or I forgot why I reported this)

Closing as WFM