| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This should be a pixel-for-pixel (i.e. bug-for-bug) port.
BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1820313002
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1820313002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
https://codereview.chromium.org/1810183003/ )
Reason for revert:
I've just had a better idea about how to fix this. Let's revert while I work on it.
Original issue's description:
> Clean up SSSE3 and SSE4 stubs.
>
> We added these stubs to work around OpenBSD's old compiler, which had
> support for SSE2 but not SSSE3 or SSE4.
>
> We now already have other unstubbed files that require SSSE3 and SSE4 compiler
> support. All the compilers we support have SSSE3 and SSE4 support, and all the
> way up to at least AVX2.
>
> (Requiring C++11 has had some nice ripple effects...)
>
>
> And, <immintrin.h> is already auto-included for these files, so no need for smmintrin or tmmintrin.
>
> BUG=skia:
> GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1810183003
> CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot
>
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/2b1b40e11afc41452b4d2f74cdebb1b6e6f7cc96
TBR=djsollen@google.com,mtklein@chromium.org
# Not skipping CQ checks because original CL landed more than 1 days ago.
BUG=skia:
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1819223003
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We added these stubs to work around OpenBSD's old compiler, which had
support for SSE2 but not SSSE3 or SSE4.
We now already have other unstubbed files that require SSSE3 and SSE4 compiler
support. All the compilers we support have SSSE3 and SSE4 support, and all the
way up to at least AVX2.
(Requiring C++11 has had some nice ripple effects...)
And, <immintrin.h> is already auto-included for these files, so no need for smmintrin or tmmintrin.
BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1810183003
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1810183003
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This lets us tag up pieces of code as requiring initialized inputs.
Almost all code requires initialized inputs, of course. This is for
code that works correctly with uninitialized data but triggers false
positive warnings in MSAN. E.g., imagine MSAN's found use of uninitialized
data in this max function:
static uint8_t max(uint8_t x, uint8_t y) { return x > y ? x : y; }
There's no bug in here... if there's uninitialized data being branched upon
here for the first time, it's sure not max's fault, it's its caller's fault.
So we might do this:
static uint8_t max(uint8_t x, uint8_t y) {
// This function uses branching, so if MSAN finds a problem here,
// we can assert x and y are initialized. This will remind us the
// problem somewhere in the caller or above, not here.
sk_msan_assert_initialized(&x, &x+1);
sk_masn_assert_initialized(&y, &y+1);
return x > y ? x : y;
}
By allowing code to assert its inputs must be initialized,
we can make the blame for use of uninitialized data more clear.
(Sometimes we have another option, to rewrite the code to avoid branching:
static uint8_t max(uint8_t x, uint8_t y) {
// This function is branchfree, so MSAN won't complain here.
// No real need to assert anything as requiring initialization.
int diff = x - y;
int negative = diff >> (sizeof(int)*8 - 1);
return (y & negative) | (x & ~negative);
}
These approaches to fixing MSAN false positives are orthogonal.)
BUG=chromium:574114
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1658913005
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1658913005
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
BUG=skia:
TBR=
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1212393002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Adds an SSE2 version of the Color32A_D565 function, to replace
the existing SSE4 version. Also does some minor cleanup.
Performance improvement in the following Skia benchmarks.
Measured on Atom Silvermont:
Xfermode_SrcOver - x3
luma_colorfilter_large - x4.6
luma_colorfilter_small - x2
tablebench - ~15%
chart_bw - ~10%
Measured on Corei7 Haswell:
luma_colorfilter_large running SSE2 - x2
luma_colorfilter_large running SSE4 - x2.3
Also improves performance in WPS Office application and 2D subtest of 0xbenchmark on Android.
Signed-off-by: Henrik Smiding <henrik.smiding@intel.com>
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/923523002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Adds an SSE4.1 version of the Color32A_D565 function.
Performance improvement in the following benchmarks:
Xfermode_SrcOver - ~100%
luma_colorfilter_large - ~150%
luma_colorfilter_small - ~60%
tablebench - ~10%
chart_bw - ~10%
(Measured on a Atom Silvermont core)
Signed-off-by: Henrik Smiding <henrik.smiding@intel.com>
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/892623002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(patchset #1 id:1 of https://codereview.chromium.org/873553003/)
Reason for revert:
Reverted the wrong CL.
Original issue's description:
> Revert of SSE4 opaque blend using intrinsics instead of assembly. (patchset #16 id:300001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/874863002/)
>
> Reason for revert:
> This causes a bug on the 'hittestpath' GM on MacMini 4,1
>
> See:
>
> https://gold.skia.org/#/triage/hittestpath?head=0
>
> for details.
>
> Original issue's description:
> > SSE4 opaque blend using intrinsics instead of assembly.
> >
> > Since we had such a hard time with the assembly versions of this blit (to the
> > point that we have them completely disabled everywhere), I thought I'd take
> > a shot at writing a version of the blit using intrinsics.
> >
> > The key feature of SSE4 we're exploiting is that we can use ptest (_mm_test*)
> > to skip the blend when the 16 src pixels we consider each loop are all opaque
> > or all transparent. _mm_shuffle_epi8 from SSSE3 also lends a hand to extract
> > all those alphas.
> >
> > It's worth looking to see if we can backport this type of logic to SSE2 using
> > _mm_movemask_epi8, or up to 32 pixels at a time using AVX.
> >
> > My local performance testing doesn't show this to be an unambiguous win
> > (there are probably microbenchmarks and SKPs where we'd be better off just
> > powering through the blend rather than looking at alphas), but the potential
> > does seem tantalizing enough to let skiaperf vet it on the bots. (< 1.0x is a win.)
> >
> > DM says it draws pixel perfect compare to the old code.
> >
> > Microbenchmarks:
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_two 14us -> 14.4us 1.03x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_three 14.3us -> 14.5us 1.01x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_bilerp 61.9us -> 62.2us 1.01x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile_scale_rotate_bilerp 102us -> 101us 0.99x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale 18.4us -> 18.2us 0.99x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bicubic 71us -> 70us 0.99x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bilerp 112us -> 109us 0.98x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile 5.72us -> 5.58us 0.98x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888 5.73us -> 5.58us 0.97x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_update 5.78us -> 5.6us 0.97x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bilerp 70.7us -> 68us 0.96x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bicubic 23.7us -> 21.8us 0.92x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A 13.9us -> 10.9us 0.78x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_opaque 14us -> 6.29us 0.45x
> > bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_transparent 14us -> 3.65us 0.26x
> >
> > Running over our ~70 SKP web page captures, this looks like we spend 0.7x
> > the time in S32A_Opaque_BlitRow compared to the SSE2 version, which should
> > be a decent predictor of real-world impact.
> >
> > BUG=chromium:399842
> >
> > Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/04bc91b972417038fecfa87c484771eac2b9b785
> >
> > CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Mac10.6-MacMini4.1-GeForce320M-x86_64-Release-Trybot
> >
> > Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/6dbfb21a6c88af6d94e8c823c3ad559f1a41b493
>
> TBR=henrik.smiding@intel.com,mtklein@google.com,herb@google.com,reed@google.com,thakis@chromium.org,mtklein@chromium.org
> NOPRESUBMIT=true
> NOTREECHECKS=true
> NOTRY=true
> BUG=chromium:399842
>
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/4988891a1173cd405bf1c1dd3a3668c451f45e4c
TBR=henrik.smiding@intel.com,mtklein@google.com,herb@google.com,reed@google.com,thakis@chromium.org,mtklein@chromium.org
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=chromium:399842
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/894083002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
#16 id:300001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/874863002/)
Reason for revert:
This causes a bug on the 'hittestpath' GM on MacMini 4,1
See:
https://gold.skia.org/#/triage/hittestpath?head=0
for details.
Original issue's description:
> SSE4 opaque blend using intrinsics instead of assembly.
>
> Since we had such a hard time with the assembly versions of this blit (to the
> point that we have them completely disabled everywhere), I thought I'd take
> a shot at writing a version of the blit using intrinsics.
>
> The key feature of SSE4 we're exploiting is that we can use ptest (_mm_test*)
> to skip the blend when the 16 src pixels we consider each loop are all opaque
> or all transparent. _mm_shuffle_epi8 from SSSE3 also lends a hand to extract
> all those alphas.
>
> It's worth looking to see if we can backport this type of logic to SSE2 using
> _mm_movemask_epi8, or up to 32 pixels at a time using AVX.
>
> My local performance testing doesn't show this to be an unambiguous win
> (there are probably microbenchmarks and SKPs where we'd be better off just
> powering through the blend rather than looking at alphas), but the potential
> does seem tantalizing enough to let skiaperf vet it on the bots. (< 1.0x is a win.)
>
> DM says it draws pixel perfect compare to the old code.
>
> Microbenchmarks:
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_two 14us -> 14.4us 1.03x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_three 14.3us -> 14.5us 1.01x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_bilerp 61.9us -> 62.2us 1.01x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile_scale_rotate_bilerp 102us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale 18.4us -> 18.2us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bicubic 71us -> 70us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bilerp 112us -> 109us 0.98x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile 5.72us -> 5.58us 0.98x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888 5.73us -> 5.58us 0.97x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update 5.78us -> 5.6us 0.97x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bilerp 70.7us -> 68us 0.96x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bicubic 23.7us -> 21.8us 0.92x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A 13.9us -> 10.9us 0.78x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_opaque 14us -> 6.29us 0.45x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_transparent 14us -> 3.65us 0.26x
>
> Running over our ~70 SKP web page captures, this looks like we spend 0.7x
> the time in S32A_Opaque_BlitRow compared to the SSE2 version, which should
> be a decent predictor of real-world impact.
>
> BUG=chromium:399842
>
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/04bc91b972417038fecfa87c484771eac2b9b785
>
> CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Mac10.6-MacMini4.1-GeForce320M-x86_64-Release-Trybot
>
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/6dbfb21a6c88af6d94e8c823c3ad559f1a41b493
TBR=henrik.smiding@intel.com,mtklein@google.com,herb@google.com,reed@google.com,thakis@chromium.org,mtklein@chromium.org
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=chromium:399842
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/873553003
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
NOTREECHECKS=true
BUG=chromium:399842
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/881253003
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since we had such a hard time with the assembly versions of this blit (to the
point that we have them completely disabled everywhere), I thought I'd take
a shot at writing a version of the blit using intrinsics.
The key feature of SSE4 we're exploiting is that we can use ptest (_mm_test*)
to skip the blend when the 16 src pixels we consider each loop are all opaque
or all transparent. _mm_shuffle_epi8 from SSSE3 also lends a hand to extract
all those alphas.
It's worth looking to see if we can backport this type of logic to SSE2 using
_mm_movemask_epi8, or up to 32 pixels at a time using AVX.
My local performance testing doesn't show this to be an unambiguous win
(there are probably microbenchmarks and SKPs where we'd be better off just
powering through the blend rather than looking at alphas), but the potential
does seem tantalizing enough to let skiaperf vet it on the bots. (< 1.0x is a win.)
DM says it draws pixel perfect compare to the old code.
Microbenchmarks:
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_two 14us -> 14.4us 1.03x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_three 14.3us -> 14.5us 1.01x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_bilerp 61.9us -> 62.2us 1.01x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile_scale_rotate_bilerp 102us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale 18.4us -> 18.2us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bicubic 71us -> 70us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bilerp 112us -> 109us 0.98x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile 5.72us -> 5.58us 0.98x
bitmap_RGBA_8888 5.73us -> 5.58us 0.97x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update 5.78us -> 5.6us 0.97x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bilerp 70.7us -> 68us 0.96x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bicubic 23.7us -> 21.8us 0.92x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A 13.9us -> 10.9us 0.78x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_opaque 14us -> 6.29us 0.45x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_transparent 14us -> 3.65us 0.26x
Running over our ~70 SKP web page captures, this looks like we spend 0.7x
the time in S32A_Opaque_BlitRow compared to the SSE2 version, which should
be a decent predictor of real-world impact.
BUG=chromium:399842
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/04bc91b972417038fecfa87c484771eac2b9b785
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Mac10.6-MacMini4.1-GeForce320M-x86_64-Release-Trybot
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/874863002
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
#14 id:260001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/874863002/)
Reason for revert:
This kills Mac 10.6 bots.
FAILED: c++ -MMD -MF obj/src/opts/opts_sse4.SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.o.d -DSK_INTERNAL -DSK_GAMMA_SRGB -DSK_GAMMA_APPLY_TO_A8 -DSK_SCALAR_TO_FLOAT_EXCLUDED -DSK_ALLOW_STATIC_GLOBAL_INITIALIZERS=1 -DSK_SUPPORT_GPU=1 -DSK_SUPPORT_OPENCL=0 -DSK_FORCE_DISTANCE_FIELD_TEXT=0 -DSK_BUILD_FOR_MAC -DSK_CRASH_HANDLER -DSK_DEVELOPER=1 -I../../src/core -I../../src/utils -I../../include/c -I../../include/config -I../../include/core -I../../include/pathops -I../../include/pipe -I../../include/utils/mac -I../../include/effects -O0 -gdwarf-2 -mmacosx-version-min=10.6 -arch x86_64 -mssse3 -Wall -Wextra -Winit-self -Wpointer-arith -Wsign-compare -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-invalid-offsetof -msse4.1 -c ../../src/opts/SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.cpp -o obj/src/opts/opts_sse4.SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.o
../../src/opts/SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.cpp:15:27: warning: x86intrin.h: No such file or directory
../../src/opts/SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.cpp: In function 'void S32A_Opaque_BlitRow32_SSE4(SkPMColor*, const SkPMColor*, int, U8CPU)':
../../src/opts/SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.cpp:40: error: '_mm_testz_si128' was not declared in this scope
../../src/opts/SkBlitRow_opts_SSE4.cpp:45: error: '_mm_testc_si128' was not declared in this scope
Original issue's description:
> SSE4 opaque blend using intrinsics instead of assembly.
>
> Since we had such a hard time with the assembly versions of this blit (to the
> point that we have them completely disabled everywhere), I thought I'd take
> a shot at writing a version of the blit using intrinsics.
>
> The key feature of SSE4 we're exploiting is that we can use ptest (_mm_test*)
> to skip the blend when the 16 src pixels we consider each loop are all opaque
> or all transparent. _mm_shuffle_epi8 from SSSE3 also lends a hand to extract
> all those alphas.
>
> It's worth looking to see if we can backport this type of logic to SSE2 using
> _mm_movemask_epi8, or up to 32 pixels at a time using AVX.
>
> My local performance testing doesn't show this to be an unambiguous win
> (there are probably microbenchmarks and SKPs where we'd be better off just
> powering through the blend rather than looking at alphas), but the potential
> does seem tantalizing enough to let skiaperf vet it on the bots. (< 1.0x is a win.)
>
> DM says it draws pixel perfect compare to the old code.
>
> Microbenchmarks:
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_two 14us -> 14.4us 1.03x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_three 14.3us -> 14.5us 1.01x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_bilerp 61.9us -> 62.2us 1.01x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile_scale_rotate_bilerp 102us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale 18.4us -> 18.2us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bicubic 71us -> 70us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bilerp 112us -> 109us 0.98x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile 5.72us -> 5.58us 0.98x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888 5.73us -> 5.58us 0.97x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_update 5.78us -> 5.6us 0.97x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bilerp 70.7us -> 68us 0.96x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bicubic 23.7us -> 21.8us 0.92x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A 13.9us -> 10.9us 0.78x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_opaque 14us -> 6.29us 0.45x
> bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_transparent 14us -> 3.65us 0.26x
>
> Running over our ~70 SKP web page captures, this looks like we spend 0.7x
> the time in S32A_Opaque_BlitRow compared to the SSE2 version, which should
> be a decent predictor of real-world impact.
>
> BUG=chromium:399842
>
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/04bc91b972417038fecfa87c484771eac2b9b785
TBR=henrik.smiding@intel.com,mtklein@google.com,herb@google.com,reed@google.com,thakis@chromium.org,mtklein@chromium.org
NOPRESUBMIT=true
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=chromium:399842
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/874033004
|
|
|
Since we had such a hard time with the assembly versions of this blit (to the
point that we have them completely disabled everywhere), I thought I'd take
a shot at writing a version of the blit using intrinsics.
The key feature of SSE4 we're exploiting is that we can use ptest (_mm_test*)
to skip the blend when the 16 src pixels we consider each loop are all opaque
or all transparent. _mm_shuffle_epi8 from SSSE3 also lends a hand to extract
all those alphas.
It's worth looking to see if we can backport this type of logic to SSE2 using
_mm_movemask_epi8, or up to 32 pixels at a time using AVX.
My local performance testing doesn't show this to be an unambiguous win
(there are probably microbenchmarks and SKPs where we'd be better off just
powering through the blend rather than looking at alphas), but the potential
does seem tantalizing enough to let skiaperf vet it on the bots. (< 1.0x is a win.)
DM says it draws pixel perfect compare to the old code.
Microbenchmarks:
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_two 14us -> 14.4us 1.03x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_stripes_three 14.3us -> 14.5us 1.01x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_bilerp 61.9us -> 62.2us 1.01x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile_scale_rotate_bilerp 102us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_scale 18.4us -> 18.2us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bicubic 71us -> 70us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_scale_rotate_bilerp 103us -> 101us 0.99x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_rotate_bilerp 112us -> 109us 0.98x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update_volatile 5.72us -> 5.58us 0.98x
bitmap_RGBA_8888 5.73us -> 5.58us 0.97x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_update 5.78us -> 5.6us 0.97x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bilerp 70.7us -> 68us 0.96x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_scale_bicubic 23.7us -> 21.8us 0.92x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A 13.9us -> 10.9us 0.78x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_opaque 14us -> 6.29us 0.45x
bitmap_RGBA_8888_A_source_transparent 14us -> 3.65us 0.26x
Running over our ~70 SKP web page captures, this looks like we spend 0.7x
the time in S32A_Opaque_BlitRow compared to the SSE2 version, which should
be a decent predictor of real-world impact.
BUG=chromium:399842
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/874863002
|
mtklein
mtklein
reed
henrik.smiding
stephana
bungeman