I thought Gentoo was all about optimizing a linux distribution to your specific proecessor. :)
Anyway, try the following optimization and see if it makes a difference in your setup: ./autogen CFLAGS="-O3 -ffast-math -ftree-vectorize" ... On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Elle Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > Being curious about optimization, I set up two identical installations > of babl, gegl, and Gimp, in separate, side-by-side prefixes (same > partition, hard drive): > > In "gimp291" babl, gegl, and Gimp were compiled with ./autogen.sh . . . > > In "gimp292" babl, gegl, and Gimp were compiled with > CFLAGS="-march=native -Ofast" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" ./autogen.sh . . . > > I made two copies of the same image (both copies in the same > directory) and ran both Gimps simultaneously, started from a terminal > using GEGL_SWAP=RAM. Then I did the same edits on both images, > switching back and forth: > > ./gimp291.sh (not optimzed) > Curves: 1.90939 MPixels/sec > Curves: 2.05433 MPixels/sec > Levels: 2.01868 MPixels/sec > Levels: 2.11656 MPixels/sec > Levels: 1.18821 MPixels/sec > (usm) > GEGL Operation: 1.55727 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.98604 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.46279 MPixels/sec > (blur) > GEGL Operation: 1.5169 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.59023 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.36274 MPixels/sec > > ./gimp292.sh (optimized) > Curves: 2.952 MPixels/sec > Curves: 3.41224 MPixels/sec > Levels: 4.92665 MPixels/sec > Levels: 5.54835 MPixels/sec > Levels: 1.937 MPixels/sec > (usm) > GEGL Operation: 1.76634 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 2.21788 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.87769 MPixels/sec > (blur) > GEGL Operation: 2.02932 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 2.04801 MPixels/sec > GEGL Operation: 1.80537 MPixels/sec > > The identical test images were 1302 × 867 pixels. I monitored the ram > usage on the status bars and both images showed the exact same amount > of ram at each step of the editing process. I also monitored system > ram using "free", and for the whole process there was plenty of free > ram, with no writing to the system swap files. Comparing the numbers, > the optimized babl/gegl/Gimp was always faster (higher MPixels/sec is > better, yes?). > > I also did a series of brush strokes using 50% opacity, hardness 50, > 1000px paint brush, trying to keep the brush strokes identical for > both versions of Gimp, switching back and forth between the two > versions. Timing was subjective, of course, but the optimized Gimp > brush strokes always completed in less time, sometimes in about half > the time as the non-optimized Gimp. > > References: > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html > http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1210138-RA-GCCAMDBUL77 > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-optimization.xml > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hints/downloads/files/optimization.txt > > The openbenchmarking article compares speed of execution of selected > tasks using several open source programs that were compiled with > different optimization levels. Usually but definitely not always > -Ofast was the fastest. > > There is no way a Linux distribution can optimize for a particular > processor. So it sounds like it might actually help if the other > programs on which Gimp depends, like Cairo and gtk, were also > optimized. Has anyone tried this? Several sources mentioned programs > that heavily use glibc as a possible exception to using higher levels > of optimization. Would that affect Gimp? > > Elle > > -- > http://ninedegreesbelow.com - articles on open source digital photography > _______________________________________________ > gimp-developer-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list >
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
