[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] request for review: JDK-7179526 : xrender : closed/sun/java2d/volatileImage/LineClipTest.java failed since jdk8b36

[Johnny Chen]

Looks good with XRDrawLine.java.

Thanks,
Johnny Chen

On Sep 27, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:

> I tried the patch and the failing test now passes fine. I can open up that test  as part of pushing the fix.
> 
> I also ran through Java 2D demo and Swingset without any apparent problems.
> 
> So this looks good to go but is there one more reviewer please ??
> 
> -phil.
> 
> 
> On 8/24/2013 5:54 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Please review my fix for: JDK-7179526 : xrender :
>> closed/sun/java2d/volatileImage/LineClipTest.java failed since jdk8b36
>> at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ceisserer/7179526/webrev.00/
>> 
>> Problem description: Lines weren't rendered in a consistent way when
>> they were clipped.
>> The issue originated from clipping being previously separated from
>> line rasterization.
>> 
>> Fix description:
>> 1. After a few failed attempts, I decided to port the native line
>> rendering algorithms from sun/java2d/loop/DrawLine.c and
>> sun/java2d/loop/LoopMacros.h to Java.
>> The original source consisted of quite a number of interdependent
>> macros, I tried to split the code into smaller methods in XRDrawLine.
>> 
>> 2. Also included is a small low-risk micro-optimization, by providing
>> a GrowableRectArray.pushRectValues()-method, replacing the rather
>> generically implemented MaskTile.addRect() method. This results in a
>> 10-20% speedup for workloads consisting of many small rectangles, as
>> this code is very often called.
>> 
>> 3. Another change is a clean-up/removal of long-time unused member
>> variables in MaskTileManager.java, from dates where line rendering was
>> implemented in a different way.
>> 
>> I could create separate patch-sets for the clean-up and the
>> micro-optimization, as you prefer. However, I consider both no-risk.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Clemens
>> 
>> PS: Performance for line-rendering workloads improved quite a bit:
>> 
>> Options common across all tests:
>>   graphics.opts.xormode=false
>>   graphics.render.opts.paint=single
>>   graphics.opts.renderhint=Default
>>   graphics.opts.alpharule=SrcOver
>>   graphics.opts.extraalpha=false
>>   graphics.render.opts.alphacolor=false
>>   global.dest=VolatileImg
>>   graphics.render.opts.antialias=false
>>   graphics.opts.clip=false
>>   graphics.render.opts.stroke=width1
>>   graphics.opts.transform=ident
>>   graphics.opts.anim=2
>> 
>> graphics.render.tests.drawLine,graphics.opts.sizes=20:
>> baseline: 23234.32805 (var=18.95%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 26042.31972 (var=6.28%) (112.09%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawLine,graphics.opts.sizes=250:
>> baseline: 27573.53165 (var=30.54%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 30530.53302 (var=7.46%) (110.72%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawLineHoriz,graphics.opts.sizes=20:
>> baseline: 93574.96039 (var=21.09%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 103011.66924 (var=3.92%) (110.08%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawLineHoriz,graphics.opts.sizes=250:
>> baseline: 1129462.56050 (var=15.02%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 1291397.82057 (var=1.53%) (114.34%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawOval,graphics.opts.sizes=20:
>> baseline: 20958.84885 (var=18.79%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 23018.13843 (var=3.44%) (109.83%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawOval,graphics.opts.sizes=250:
>> baseline: 15263.36513 (var=19.22%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 33692.11899 (var=1.29%) (220.74%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawPoly,graphics.opts.sizes=20:
>> baseline: 33479.49456 (var=18.25%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 37251.33485 (var=3.36%) (111.27%)
>> graphics.render.tests.drawPoly,graphics.opts.sizes=250:
>> baseline: 28618.54379 (var=22.98%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 42345.48575 (var=4.03%) (147.97%)
>> graphics.render.tests.shape.drawCubic,graphics.opts.sizes=20:
>> baseline: 10687.11472 (var=13.72%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 10538.90697 (var=33.91%) (98.61%)
>> graphics.render.tests.shape.drawCubic,graphics.opts.sizes=250:
>> baseline: 8458.942632 (var=18.26%) (100.0%)
>> patch: 16690.96833 (var=2.67%) (197.32%)
>> 
>> Summary:
>>   baseline:
>>     Number of tests:  10
>>     Overall average:  139131.1690314054
>>     Best spread:      13.72% variance
>>     Worst spread:     30.54% variance
>>     (Basis for results comparison)
>> 
>>   patch:
>>     Number of tests:  10
>>     Overall average:  161451.9295901127
>>     Best spread:      1.29% variance
>>     Worst spread:     33.91% variance
>>     Comparison to basis:
>>       Best result:      220.74% of basis
>>       Worst result:     98.61% of basis
>>       Number of wins:   9
>>       Number of ties:   1
>>       Number of losses: 0
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/attachments/20131001/6d8be313/attachment.html>