From b887a96765db59fb85b048d097fcdfb07f4e74e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: iris <2+iris@noreply.localhost> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 23:26:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs/bench: iris's first phone report, before the phone fixes Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 --- .../iris-phone-2026-09-06-before-fixes.md | 31 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/bench/iris-phone-2026-09-06-before-fixes.md diff --git a/docs/bench/iris-phone-2026-09-06-before-fixes.md b/docs/bench/iris-phone-2026-09-06-before-fixes.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..24c6f9d --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/bench/iris-phone-2026-09-06-before-fixes.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +# iris bench report from Iris's phone, 2026-09-06, before the phone fixes + +Build 46246ea (Vulkan, bench v1: 24-swipe scroll loop then 400 streamed +events), run by Iris on her Pixel 9 Pro XL before the first-touch wipe, +the missing bold faces, the density scale and the status-bar inset were +fixed -- so the rows were drawn at roughly a third of their intended size +and the run may have included frames after the wipe. Preliminary, kept +because it is the first iris number from real hardware. Compare with +`compose-phone-2026-09-06.md`, taken on the same phone with the same +fixture and gesture loop. + +Reading it: the phone is 120 Hz (8.3 ms budget). `janky%` here counts +frames over 16.7 ms, so it is not Compose's `late` (over 8.3 ms). Like for +like: iris p50 6.2 ms vs Compose 7.7 ms; p90 32.0 vs 29.2; p99 42.1 vs +41.1. `cpu_p50=4.7ms` is iris's own per-frame CPU work on the phone, +against 0.2-0.4 ms on the emulator's x86 cores. Process CPU 15.6 s vs +20.9 s, but over a shorter run (692 frames vs 1613 -- iris only renders on +change and had no fling settle time), so per-second CPU is not directly +comparable; peak RSS 365 MB vs 587 MB. Battery current mean 563 mA vs +419 mA is the one figure that reads worse, and it is the least +comparable: 22 samples vs 39, over runs of different length and different +idle share. Bench v2's per-phase accounting is what makes these comparable. + +``` +iris bench report +frames=692 janky%=32.37 p50=6.2ms p90=32.0ms p99=42.1ms worst=52.6ms (measures redraw-start to after present() is called, not GPU/compositor completion) cpu_p50=4.7ms gpu_wait_p50=1.3ms (redraw-start-to-submit vs. submit-to-after-present) + scroll: 6 cycles (24 swipes), streamed 400/400 fixture events + process CPU time over this run: 15554ms + peak RSS: 365328kB + battery current: mean -563493µA over 22 samples (min -1807812, max -132812) +```