On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:55:56 +0300 Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:27:07 +0300 > > > Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> This patch-set contains optimizations for two existing VMX fast-paths > > and a new > > >> VMX fast-path function. > > >> > > >> The optimization ideas came from Siarhei's recent implementation of > > over_n_8888 > > >> VMX fast path (see > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-September/003951.html). > > >> > > >> The new function I added is actually one that I already implemented a > > couple > > >> of months ago, but it produced conflicting results regarding the > > performance. > > >> However, I now optimized it and it now shows considerable performance > > >> improvement over the non-vmx path. > > >> > > >> The last patch removes many helper functions that caused the less than > > stellar > > >> performance the current fast-paths provide. I removed them as I don't > > want > > >> anyone to try and use them, because there are much better alternatives, > > as > > >> I've demonstrated with this patch-set. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Oded > > >> > > >> Oded Gabbay (4): > > >> vmx: optimize scaled_nearest_scanline_vmx_8888_8888_OVER > > >> vmx: optimize vmx_composite_over_n_8888_8888_ca > > >> vmx: implement fast path vmx_composite_over_n_8_8888 > > >> vmx: Remove unused expensive functions > > >> > > >> pixman/pixman-vmx.c | 439 > > ++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------- > > >> 1 file changed, 150 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-) > > >> > > > > > > Hi Oded, > > > > > > nice diffstat. :-) > > > > > > This series is: > > > Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paala...@collabora.co.uk> > > > > > > I did notice a few minor issues. Patch 1 has a dereference before > > > NULL-check, and you sometimes forget the space before an opening > > > parenthesis. > > > > > > I suppose there is no danger of regressing operations you didn't > > > touch? ;-) > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > pq > > > > HI Pekka, > > I run cario benchmark (trimmed) and there was *no* regression. > > I don't think optimizing some fast-paths affects other, non-related, > > fast-paths. And, of course, I don't think it has *any* impact on non > > POWER systems. > > However, if someone thinks of a specific other function I need to > > check for regression, I'm open for suggestions :) > > > > Oded > > > > It bugged me that there was no change, neither up nor down in cairo > benchmark. > So I rechecked it and I had a wrong setup - cairo used the system-installed > pixman instead of my pixman. > > After fixing that, I saw several modest speedups for this patch series: > > Speedups > ======== > image t-firefox-scrolling 1232.30 (1237.81 0.40%) -> 1080.17 > (1097.06 0.99%): 1.14x speedup > image t-gnome-terminal-vim 613.86 (615.04 0.12%) -> 549.73 (551.32 > 0.13%): 1.12x speedup > image t-evolution 405.54 (412.06 0.81%) -> 370.57 (379.11 1.89%): > 1.09x speedup > image t-gvim 653.02 (655.16 0.16%) -> 615.31 (618.40 1.68%): 1.06x > speedup > image t-firefox-talos-gfx 919.31 (926.31 0.36%) -> 867.05 (870.01 > 0.35%): 1.06x speedup > > I'll add it into the last commit of this patch-set for future references. Paranoia pays off! Cheers, pq
pgp9RdYLOWQ75.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman