Hi Soren, I usually select cairo-perf-trace that utilize optimized fast path the most. In this case, xfce4-terminal-a1 proved to be that one. I use oprofile to check CPU utilization. Here is oprofile log I got for the xfce4-terminal-a1:
CPU: MIPS 74K, speed 0 MHz (estimated) Counted CYCLES events (Cycles) with a unit mask of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 40000 samples % image name app name symbol name 2658517 50.3337 no-vmlinux no-vmlinux /no-vmlinux 1216517 23.0323 libpixman-1.so libpixman-1.so pixman_composite_over_n_8888_8888_ca_asm_mips 270995 5.1308 libc-2.11.2.so libc-2.11.2.so memset 165057 3.1250 libm-2.11.2.so libm-2.11.2.so floor 139880 2.6483 libpixman-1.so libpixman-1.so pixman_fill_buff32_mips_dsp 136303 2.5806 libpixman-1.so libpixman-1.so fetch_scanline_a8 61821 1.1705 libc-2.11.2.so libc-2.11.2.so memcpy ... All other traces don't utilize this fast-path that much (this is what my oprofile runs on the test system showed). If you know some more suitable trace (or system configuration I need to have, like fonts installed, etc), please let me know, and I'll re-run the benchmarks and update the commit. Thanks, Nemanja Lukic -----Original Message----- From: Siarhei Siamashka [mailto:siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:05 PM To: Søren Sandmann Cc: Lukic, Nemanja; pixman@lists.freedesktop.org; nemanja.lu...@rt-rk.com Subject: Re: [Pixman] [PATCH] MIPS: DSPr2: Added over_n_8888_8888_ca and over_n_8888_0565_ca fast paths. On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Søren Sandmann <sandm...@cs.au.dk> wrote: > Nemanja Lukic <nlu...@mips.com> writes: > >> [ # ] backend test min(s) median(s) stddev. count >> [ # ] image: pixman 0.25.3 >> [ 0] image xfce4-terminal-a1 138.223 139.070 0.33% 6/6 >> [ # ] image16: pixman 0.25.3 >> [ 0] image16 xfce4-terminal-a1 132.763 132.939 0.06% 5/6 > > I'm curious why you chose this particular benchmark? The main path that > xfce4-terminal-a1 exercises is over_n_1_8888 and add_1_1. As far as I > can tell it doesn't actually hit the two fast paths that you added, > which makes it suspicious where the speed-up is coming from. I think it may actually depend on what fonts are installed in the system and I vaguely remember encountering this at least once. If the suitable bitmap fonts are missing, then the benchmark might fallback to some other font and exercise different fast paths. -- Best regards, Siarhei Siamashka _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
