Hi Pekka, pekka.paalanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:49:13 +0200: > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:13:22 +0100 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello Maxime, > > > > + Arthur > > > > mripard@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:53:37 +0100: > > > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:26:01AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > pekka.paalanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:55:22 +0200: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 18:31:32 +0100 > > > > > Louis Chauvet <louis.chauvet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Change the composition algorithm to iterate over pixels instead of lines. > > > > > > It allows a simpler management of rotation and pixel access for complex formats. > > > > > > > > > > > > This new algorithm allows read_pixel function to have access to x/y > > > > > > coordinates and make it possible to read the correct thing in a block > > > > > > when block_w and block_h are not 1. > > > > > > The iteration pixel-by-pixel in the same method also allows a simpler > > > > > > management of rotation with drm_rect_* helpers. This way it's not needed > > > > > > anymore to have misterious switch-case distributed in multiple places. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > there was a very good reason to write this code using lines: > > > > > performance. Before lines, it was indeed operating on individual pixels. > > > > > > > > > > Please, include performance measurements before and after this series > > > > > to quantify the impact on the previously already supported pixel > > > > > formats, particularly the 32-bit-per-pixel RGB variants. > > > > > > > > > > VKMS will be used more and more in CI for userspace projects, and > > > > > performance actually matters there. > > > > > > > > > > I'm worrying that this performance degradation here is significant. I > > > > > believe it is possible to keep blending with lines, if you add new line > > > > > getters for reading from rotated, sub-sampled etc. images. That way you > > > > > don't have to regress the most common formats' performance. > > > > > > > > While I understand performance is important and should be taken into > > > > account seriously, I cannot understand how broken testing could be > > > > considered better. Fast but inaccurate will always be significantly > > > > less attractive to my eyes. > > > > > > AFAIK, neither the cover letter nor the commit log claimed it was fixing > > > something broken, just that it was "better" (according to what > > > criteria?). > > > > Better is probably too vague and I agree the "fixing" part is not > > clearly explained in the commit log. The cover-letter however states: > > > > > Patch 2/2: This patch is more complex. My main target was to solve issues > > > I found in [1], but as it was very complex to do it "in place", I choose > > > to rework the composition function. > > ... > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20240110-vkms-yuv-v2-0-952fcaa5a193@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > If you follow this link you will find all the feedback and especially > > the "broken" parts. Just to be clear, writing bugs is totally expected > > and review/testing is supposed to help on this regard. I am not blaming > > the author in any way, just focusing on getting this code in a more > > readable shape and hopefully reinforce the testing procedure. > > > > > If something is truly broken, it must be stated what exactly is so we > > > can all come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone. > > > > Maybe going through the series pointed above will give more context > > but AFAIU: the YUV composition is not totally right (and the tests used > > to validate it need to be more complex as well in order to fail). > > > > Here is a proposal. > > > > Today's RGB implementation is only optimized in the line-by-line case > > when there is no rotation. The logic is bit convoluted and may possibly > > be slightly clarified with a per-format read_line() implementation, > > at a very light performance cost. Such an improvement would definitely > > benefit to the clarity of the code, especially when transformations > > (especially the rotations) come into play because they would be clearly > > handled differently instead of being "hidden" in the optimized logic. > > Performances would not change much as this path is not optimized today > > anyway (the pixel-oriented logic is already used in the rotation case). > > > > Arthur's YUV implementation is indeed well optimized but the added > > complexity probably lead to small mistakes in the logic. The > > per-format read_line() implementation mentioned above could be > > extended to the YUV format as well, which would leverage Arthur's > > proposal by re-using his optimized version. Louis will help on this > > regard. However, for more complex cases such as when there is a > > rotation, it will be easier (and not sub-optimized compared to the RGB > > case) to also fallback to a pixel-oriented processing. > > > > Would this approach make sense? > > Hi, > > I think it would, if I understand what you mean. Ever since I proposed > a line-by-line algorithm to improve the performance, I was thinking of > per-format read_line() functions that would be selected outside of any > loops. Extending that to support YUV is only natural. I can imagine > rotation complicates things, and I won't oppose that resulting in a > much heavier read_line() implementation used in those cases. They might > perhaps call the original read_line() implementations pixel-by-pixel or > plane-by-plane (i.e. YUV planes) per pixel. Chroma-siting complicates > things even further. That way one could compose any > rotation-format-siting combination by chaining function pointers. I'll let Louis also validate but on my side I feel like I totally agree with your feedback. > I haven't looked at VKMS in a long time, and I am disappointed to find > that vkms_compose_row() is calling plane->pixel_read() pixel-by-pixel. > The reading vfunc should be called with many pixels at a time when the > source FB layout allows it. The whole point of the line-based functions > was that they repeat the innermost loop in every function body to make > the per-pixel overhead as small as possible. The VKMS implementations > benchmarked before and after the original line-based algorithm showed > that calling a function pointer per-pixel is relatively very expensive. > Or maybe it was a switch-case. Indeed, since your initial feedback Louis made a couple of comparisons and the time penalty is between +5% and +60% depending on the case, AFAIR. > Sorry, I didn't realize the optimization had already been lost. No problem, actually I also lost myself in my first answer as I initially thought the (mainline) RGB logic was also broken in edge cases, which it was not, only the YUV logic suffered from some limitations. > Btw. I'd suggest renaming vkms_compose_row() to vkms_fetch_row() since > it's not composing anything and the name mislead me. Makes sense. > I think if you inspect the compositing code as of revision > 8356b97906503a02125c8d03c9b88a61ea46a05a you'll get a better feeling of > what it was supposed to be. Excellent, thanks a lot! Miquèl
