Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison
> Yes, at the time I ran three different benchmarks over the non-opencl version > because I was trying to compare three different versions of the ANSI C code. > This was, the ANSI C code currently in the trunk, the code in the trunk with > the patch #473 applied (patch from Vasco that removed

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Marco Domingues
Hi, > On 10 Aug 2017, at 10:13, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > > Marco, > > I saw your benchmark logs and it looks like you ran the non-opencl version > three times, which is almost certainly why the performance rankings were > nearly identical. You’ll want to run

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Christopher Sean Morrison
Marco, I saw your benchmark logs and it looks like you ran the non-opencl version three times, which is almost certainly why the performance rankings were nearly identical. You’ll want to run “TIMEFRAME=60 DEVIATION=1 benchmark run” for the non-ocl path and “TIMEFRAME=60 DEVIATION=1 benchmark

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote: > ... > > Related to these specific changes, these numbers pass a sanity check. If > you ran a profile (e.g., perf), you’d see that only a fraction of time is > spent in boolean code (10-30% of time, depending on

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Marco Domingues
Hi, Thanks for reviewing my code and making the adjustments, Vasco! I’ve integrated the changes in my patch. I’ve finished the port of the new bool_eval() function to OpenCL, and although the improved performance, it wasn’t enough to outperform the ANSI C code with the Release build. For

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Marco Domingues < marcodomingue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for reviewing my code and making the adjustments, Vasco! I’ve > integrated the changes in my patch. > > I’ve finished the port of the new bool_eval() function to OpenCL, and > although the

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Marco Domingues
> On 11 Aug 2017, at 00:20, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Marco Domingues > wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for reviewing my code and making the adjustments, Vasco!

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa < vasco.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Marco Domingues < > marcodomingue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for reviewing my code and making the adjustments, Vasco! I’ve >> integrated the changes

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa < vasco.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS: If you really wanna know what I think is happening i suspect that in > complex scenes, where the bitvectors are really sparse, we would have been > better off using lists like the ANSI C code

Re: [brlcad-devel] bool_eval()

2017-08-10 Thread Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa < vasco.co...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > The other issue that should be causing slowdowns is that the ANSI C code > in rt_shootray() intersects one solid at a time and calls rt_bootfinal() on > the partial results before continuing. In