[OpenJDK Rasterizer] Marlin #4
Laurent Bourgès
bourges.laurent at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 18:01:04 UTC 2016
Hi Sergey,
thank you to look at this problem.
I confirm that your simple patch improves the performance on my laptop
ubuntu 16.4 (gcc 5.4 as yours) with intel i4700 cpu when I run the ellipse
JMH test.
- ojdk9 without patch:
Benchmark (size) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 100 avgt 6 0,233 ± 0,007 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,203 ± 0,004 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 900 avgt 6 2,361 ± 0,458 ms/op
*EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 1400 avgt 6 4,023 ± 0,028
ms/op*EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse
100 avgt 6 0,198 ± 0,010 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,858 ± 0,046 ms/op
*EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 900 avgt 6 4,962 ± 0,393
ms/opEllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 1400 avgt 6 10,475 ± 0,035 ms/op*
- ojdk9 with patch:
Benchmark (size) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 100 avgt 6 0,232 ± 0,006 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,203 ± 0,021 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 900 avgt 6 2,355 ± 0,467 ms/op
*EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 1400 avgt 6 3,835 ± 0,632 ms/op*
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 100 avgt 6 0,191 ± 0,010 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,793 ± 0,029 ms/op
*EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 900 avgt 6 4,741 ± 0,062
ms/opEllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 1400 avgt 6 8,810 ± 0,100 ms/op*
- reference jdk8 with marlin 0.7.4 (comparable):
Benchmark (size) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 100 avgt 6 0,231 ± 0,002 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,199 ± 0,013 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 900 avgt 6 2,282 ± 0,006 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.drawEllipse 1400 avgt 6 3,600 ± 0,133 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 100 avgt 6 0,189 ± 0,001 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 500 avgt 6 1,777 ± 0,009 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 900 avgt 6 4,856 ± 0,110 ms/op
EllipseRdrTest.fillEllipse 1400 avgt 6 10,252 ± 0,302 ms/op
If you need, I can run against Oracle JDK9 EA builds.
Cheers & Happy hollidays,
Laurent
2016-12-21 15:44 GMT+01:00 Sergey Bylokhov <sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com>:
> Hi, Laurent.
> Can you please check the next patch:
> ==========
> diff -r 8a61c000a194 make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
> --- a/make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk Tue Dec 20 09:52:14 2016 -0800
> +++ b/make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk Wed Dec 21 17:33:36 2016 +0300
> @@ -222,6 +222,7 @@
> # applies to debug builds.
> ifeq ($(TOOLCHAIN_TYPE), gcc)
> BUILD_LIBAWT_debug_mem.c_CFLAGS := -w
> + LIBAWT_CFLAGS += -fgcse-after-reload
> endif
>
>
> $(eval $(call SetupNativeCompilation,BUILD_LIBAWT, \
> ==========
>
> It seems that this is the simplest version which produce the good
> performance results and safe enough to be integrated. On my system(Ubuntu
> gcc5.4) it will speedup default rasterizer from 8.400 to 6.200 ms/op +-
> 20%. Default rasterizer in OracleJDK 8u112 has 6.500.
> Fix does not affect the the public jdk9.(which is build by RE on gcc
> 4.9.2), seems gcc 4.9.2 produce good results w/ and w/o this option.
>
>
>
> We should also be wary of compiler options that are a win on one processor
> family and a loss on another. Anything that schedules instructions may be
> specific to a particular generation of CPUs, for instance. Or for i5 vs i7
> vs M(obile)...
>
> ...jim
>
> On 10/2/15 9:10 AM, Laurent Bourgès wrote:
>
> Sergey,
>
> thanks for the information:
>
> I tried your gcc options on my ubuntu 14.4 (v4.8.4) and it is
> actually
> slightly faster: 10% on my fill ellipse test (450ms vs 490ms).
>
>
> I tested by your jmh test, and the difference became bigger on 1400
> size.
>
>
> Interesting; I will try too.
>
>
>
> Do you know which gcc compiler and options are used to build
> JavaSE EA?
>
> I guess that compiler options in makefile are the same.
>
> plus some default gcc options:
> jdk8:
> gcc (GCC) 4.3.0 20080428 (Red Hat-8) C compiler version 4.3.0-8)
>
> jdk9:
> gcc-4.8.2 - OEL5.5
>
>
> However the gcc compiler are different: 4.3 vs 4.8.2 !
>
> So it may be worth comparing their different optimization options; I
> guess somebody already looked at that !
>
>
> Moreover, the linux distrib may define default options.
>
> I will try to figure out all compiler options (command line +
> defaults)
> on my machine.
>
>
> It is not simple to find an option, which will help for everyone.
> Two options suggested by me is a minimum number from -O3 to get the
> maximum performance, both seems reasonable. Actually if I change the
> -O2 to -O3(OPTIMIZATION := LOW =>> OPTIMIZATION := HIGHEST)
> performance became worse.
>
>
> It is often the case with O3, but your patch seems a good win with only
> 2 enabled options.
>
>
> What is your build environment ?
>
>
> Ubuntu 14.04 gcc 4.8.4
>
>
> I have the same and I got finally my gcc options:
> gcc -c -Q -O2 --help=common
>
> Here are the difference between O2 vs O3 with gcc 4.8.4:
>
> gcc -c -Q -O3 --help=optimizers > /tmp/O3-opts
> gcc -c -Q -O2 --help=optimizers > /tmp/O2-opts
> diff /tmp/O2-opts /tmp/O3-opts | grep enabled
>
> *> -fgcse-after-reload [enabled]
> *> -finline-functions [enabled]
>
> -fipa-cp-clone [enabled]
> -fpredictive-commoning [enabled]
> -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns [enabled]
> -ftree-partial-pre [enabled]
>
> *> -ftree-vectorize [enabled]
> *> -funswitch-loops [enabled]
>
> -fvect-cost-model [enabled]
>
>
> So we could evaluate some of these options and see what is the best
> compromise for libawt on gcc 4.8 !
>
> Regards,
> Laurent
>
>
>
--
--
Laurent Bourgès
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/graphics-rasterizer-dev/attachments/20161221/182c80af/attachment.html>
More information about the graphics-rasterizer-dev
mailing list