On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Siarhei Siamashka > <siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Running "lowlevel-blt-bench over_n_8888" on Playstation3 3.2GHz, > > Gentoo ppc (32-bit userland) gave the following results: > > > > before: over_n_8888 = L1: 147.47 L2: 205.86 M:121.07 > > after: over_n_8888 = L1: 287.27 L2: 261.09 M:133.48 > > > > Signed-off-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> > > --- > > pixman/pixman-vmx.c | 54 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/pixman/pixman-vmx.c b/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > > index a9bd024..9e551b3 100644 > > --- a/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > > +++ b/pixman/pixman-vmx.c > > @@ -2745,6 +2745,58 @@ vmx_composite_src_x888_8888 (pixman_implementation_t > > *imp, > > } > > > > static void > > +vmx_composite_over_n_8888 (pixman_implementation_t *imp, > > + pixman_composite_info_t *info) > > +{ > > + PIXMAN_COMPOSITE_ARGS (info); > > + uint32_t *dst_line, *dst; > > + uint32_t src, ia; > > + int i, w, dst_stride; > > + vector unsigned int vdst, vsrc, via; > > + > > + src = _pixman_image_get_solid (imp, src_image, > > dest_image->bits.format); > > + > > + if (src == 0) > > + return; > > + > > + PIXMAN_IMAGE_GET_LINE ( > > + dest_image, dest_x, dest_y, uint32_t, dst_stride, dst_line, 1); > > + > > + vsrc = (vector unsigned int){src, src, src, src}; > > + via = negate (splat_alpha (vsrc)); > If we will use the over function (see my next comment), we need to > remove the negate() from the above statement, as it is done in the > over function. > > > + ia = ALPHA_8 (~src); > > + > > + while (height--) > > + { > > + dst = dst_line; > > + dst_line += dst_stride; > > + w = width; > > + > > + while (w && ((uintptr_t)dst & 15)) > > + { > > + uint32_t d = *dst; > > + UN8x4_MUL_UN8_ADD_UN8x4 (d, ia, src); > > + *dst++ = d; > > + w--; > > + } > > + > > + for (i = w / 4; i > 0; i--) > > + { > > + vdst = pix_multiply (load_128_aligned (dst), via); > > + save_128_aligned (dst, pix_add (vsrc, vdst)); > > Instead of the above two lines, I would simply use the over function > in vmx, which does exactly that. So: > vdst = over(vsrc, via, load_128_aligned(dst)) > save_128_aligned (dst, vdst); > > I prefer this as it reuses an existing function which helps > maintainability, and using it has no impact on performance. > > > + dst += 4; > > + } > > + > > + for (i = w % 4; --i >= 0;) > > + { > > + uint32_t d = dst[i]; > > + UN8x4_MUL_UN8_ADD_UN8x4 (d, ia, src); > > + dst[i] = d; > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void > > vmx_composite_over_8888_8888 (pixman_implementation_t *imp, > > pixman_composite_info_t *info) > > { > > @@ -3079,6 +3131,8 @@ FAST_NEAREST_MAINLOOP (vmx_8888_8888_normal_OVER, > > > > static const pixman_fast_path_t vmx_fast_paths[] = > > { > > + PIXMAN_STD_FAST_PATH (OVER, solid, null, a8r8g8b8, > > vmx_composite_over_n_8888), > > + PIXMAN_STD_FAST_PATH (OVER, solid, null, x8r8g8b8, > > vmx_composite_over_n_8888), > > PIXMAN_STD_FAST_PATH (OVER, a8r8g8b8, null, a8r8g8b8, > > vmx_composite_over_8888_8888), > > PIXMAN_STD_FAST_PATH (OVER, a8r8g8b8, null, x8r8g8b8, > > vmx_composite_over_8888_8888), > > PIXMAN_STD_FAST_PATH (OVER, a8b8g8r8, null, a8b8g8r8, > > vmx_composite_over_8888_8888), > > -- > > 1.7.8.6 > > > > Indeed, this implementation is much better than what I did. > Apparently, converting sse2 to vmx calls isn't the optimal way. > On my POWER8 machine, I get: > > reference memcpy speed = 24764.8MB/s (6191.2MP/s for 32bpp fills) > L1 572.29 1539.47 +169.00% > L2 1038.08 1549.04 +49.22% > M 1104.1 1522.22 +37.87% > HT 447.45 676.32 +51.15% > VT 520.82 764.82 +46.85% > R 407.92 570.54 +39.87% > RT 148.9 208.77 +40.21% > Kops/s 1100 1418 +28.91% > > So, assuming the change above, this patch is: > > Reviewed-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com>
Hi Siarhei, After I fixed my cairo setup (See http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-September/003987.html), I went and re-tested your patch with cairo trimmed benchmark against current pixman master. Unfortunately, it gives a minor slowdown: Slowdowns ========= t-firefox-scrolling 1232.30 -> 1295.75 : 1.05x slowdown even if I apply your patch over my latest patch-set (that was inspired by your patch), I still get a slowdown, albeit in a different trace: Slowdowns ========= t-firefox-asteroids 440.01 -> 469.68: 1.07x What's your take on this ? Oded _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman