Specify bench_type & source_type for image benches

Specify bench_type & source_type for image benches

This will allow us to use perf filtering for comparing SkImageDecoder
to SkCodec.

BUG=skia:3418
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/303fa350125f372bbfc29bec1235885493dab9b4

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 15:14:31]

scroggo@google.com changed reviewers:
+ msarett@google.com, mtklein@google.com

[mtklein, 2015-10-05 15:40:02]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp
File bench/nanobench.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode873
bench/nanobench.cpp:873: fBenchType = useCodec ? "codec" : "skimagedecoder";
I take it the subset-ness of these benches is distinguishable some other way,
like name?

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 15:43:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp
File bench/nanobench.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode873
bench/nanobench.cpp:873: fBenchType = useCodec ? "codec" : "skimagedecoder";
On 2015/10/05 15:40:01, mtklein wrote:
> I take it the subset-ness of these benches is distinguishable some other way,
> like name?

Yes. Come to think of it, we also distinguish codec vs imagedecoder by name. I
know that with DM we deliberately use the same name for both, so that Gold lets
us compare the two easily. Should we be doing the same thing here?

[msarett, 2015-10-05 15:45:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp
File bench/nanobench.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode794
bench/nanobench.cpp:794: fSourceType = "image";
nit:

Can we use skcodec vs skimagedecoder or codec vs imagedecoder?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode873
bench/nanobench.cpp:873: fBenchType = useCodec ? "codec" : "skimagedecoder";
On 2015/10/05 15:43:19, scroggo wrote:
> On 2015/10/05 15:40:01, mtklein wrote:
> > I take it the subset-ness of these benches is distinguishable some other
way,
> > like name?
> 
> Yes. Come to think of it, we also distinguish codec vs imagedecoder by name. I
> know that with DM we deliberately use the same name for both, so that Gold
lets
> us compare the two easily. Should we be doing the same thing here?

Good question

[mtklein, 2015-10-05 15:52:58]

You can plot anything you want on the same chart.  I'd just try landing
something like this and see if you find it easy to filter down what you want in
perf.skia.org.

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 16:05:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp
File bench/nanobench.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode794
bench/nanobench.cpp:794: fSourceType = "image";
On 2015/10/05 15:45:20, msarett wrote:
> nit:
> 
> Can we use skcodec vs skimagedecoder or codec vs imagedecoder?

Ah, you mean instead of "codec" vs "skimagedecoder" (which is on the next line)?
sgtm

[msarett, 2015-10-05 16:07:21]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp
File bench/nanobench.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/diff/1/bench/nanobench.cpp#newcode794
bench/nanobench.cpp:794: fSourceType = "image";
On 2015/10/05 16:05:18, scroggo wrote:
> On 2015/10/05 15:45:20, msarett wrote:
> > nit:
> > 
> > Can we use skcodec vs skimagedecoder or codec vs imagedecoder?
> 
> Ah, you mean instead of "codec" vs "skimagedecoder" (which is on the next
line)?
> sgtm

Yes!

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 16:07:58]

The CQ bit was checked by scroggo@google.com

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 16:07:58]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from mtklein@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1387863002/#ps20001
(title: ""codec" -> "skcodec"")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-05 16:08:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1387863002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1387863002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-05 16:17:48]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-05 16:17:49]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Debug-Trybot on client.skia (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia/builders/Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2...)

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 17:55:43]

On 2015/10/05 16:17:49, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Debug-Trybot on client.skia (JOB_FAILED,
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia/builders/Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2...)

The failure was due to the fact that we started running nanobench on the images.
That breaks with or without this patch. I'm going to try to land this anyway,
and independently fix the crashes (which are no longer crashing since Mike
reverted the CL that started running nanobench on our images).

[scroggo, 2015-10-05 17:55:48]

The CQ bit was checked by scroggo@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-05 17:56:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1387863002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1387863002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-05 18:03:39]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/303fa350125f372bbfc29bec1235885493dab9b4