Am 2014-03-24 20:47, schrieb Keith Packard:
Even still, uxa is significantly faster than glamor on this one; uxa
has
a simple test for a request that contains only vertical and horizontal
lines and fills those as rectangles. We could easily do the same thing
in glamor, which should yield better performance for this case. In
fact,
I suspect we could do the test for all vertical/horizontal with the CPU
and let a vertex shader compute rectangles from the existing line
coordinates. Might be a fun exercise.
1: intel-glamor-line.perf
2: intel-uxa.perf
1 2 Operation
------------ ------------------------- -------------------------
4020000.0 10700000.0 ( 2.662) 500-pixel horizontal line
segment
177000.0 9860000.0 ( 55.706) 500-pixel vertical line
segment
But shouldn't UXA be affected as much as glamor by cache issues?
My test results on ivb glamor vs SNA looks funny as SNA seems to be as
slow as glamor:
glamor:
3000000 reps @ 0.0004 msec (2350000.0/sec): 500-pixel horizontal line
segment
600000 reps @ 0.0018 msec (565000.0/sec): 500-pixel vertical line
segment
SNA:
8000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (7290000.0/sec): 500-pixel horizontal line
segment
400000 reps @ 0.0024 msec (413000.0/sec): 500-pixel vertical line
segment
As UXA is so much faster, could it be because of line rasterization
limits of the gpu itself?
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
