[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] request for review: JDK-7179526 : xrender : closed/sun/java2d/volatileImage/LineClipTest.java failed since jdk8b36
philip.race at oracle.com
Fri Sep 27 20:35:09 UTC 2013
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 ??
On 8/24/2013 5:54 AM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> 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:
> baseline: 23234.32805 (var=18.95%) (100.0%)
> patch: 26042.31972 (var=6.28%) (112.09%)
> baseline: 27573.53165 (var=30.54%) (100.0%)
> patch: 30530.53302 (var=7.46%) (110.72%)
> baseline: 93574.96039 (var=21.09%) (100.0%)
> patch: 103011.66924 (var=3.92%) (110.08%)
> baseline: 1129462.56050 (var=15.02%) (100.0%)
> patch: 1291397.82057 (var=1.53%) (114.34%)
> baseline: 20958.84885 (var=18.79%) (100.0%)
> patch: 23018.13843 (var=3.44%) (109.83%)
> baseline: 15263.36513 (var=19.22%) (100.0%)
> patch: 33692.11899 (var=1.29%) (220.74%)
> baseline: 33479.49456 (var=18.25%) (100.0%)
> patch: 37251.33485 (var=3.36%) (111.27%)
> baseline: 28618.54379 (var=22.98%) (100.0%)
> patch: 42345.48575 (var=4.03%) (147.97%)
> baseline: 10687.11472 (var=13.72%) (100.0%)
> patch: 10538.90697 (var=33.91%) (98.61%)
> baseline: 8458.942632 (var=18.26%) (100.0%)
> patch: 16690.96833 (var=2.67%) (197.32%)
> Number of tests: 10
> Overall average: 139131.1690314054
> Best spread: 13.72% variance
> Worst spread: 30.54% variance
> (Basis for results comparison)
> 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
More information about the 2d-dev