Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
1426583004:
SkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops. (Closed)
|
Created:
5 years, 1 month ago by Stephen White Modified:
5 years, 1 month ago CC:
reviews_skia.org Base URL:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia.git@master Target Ref:
refs/heads/master Project:
skia Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionSkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops.
This gives ~15% improvement on blur_image on Linux Z620,
and should allow me to implement cropping without
incurring a perf hit.
BUG=skia:
CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/d5fa77ff6a0da93c613e8fc556d96197005ff768
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : Update to ToT #Messages
Total messages: 24 (9 generated)
The CQ bit was checked by senorblanco@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1426583004/1 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1426583004/1
Description was changed from ========== SkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops. This gives ~15% improvement on blur_image on Linux Z620. BUG=skia: CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot ========== to ========== SkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops. This gives ~15% improvement on blur_image on Linux Z620. BUG=skia: CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot ==========
senorblanco@chromium.org changed reviewers: + mtklein@google.com, robertphillips@google.com
Description was changed from ========== SkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops. This gives ~15% improvement on blur_image on Linux Z620. BUG=skia: CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot ========== to ========== SkBlurImageFilter_opt.h: break conditions into separate loops. This gives ~15% improvement on blur_image on Linux Z620, and should allow me to implement cropping without incurring a perf hit. BUG=skia: CQ_EXTRA_TRYBOTS=client.skia:Test-Ubuntu-GCC-GCE-CPU-AVX2-x86_64-Release-SKNX_NO_SIMD-Trybot ==========
mtklein@ | robertphillips@: PTAL. Thanks!
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
lgtm
I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g.
blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00.
You too? Do you care?
blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms 1.88x
blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms 1.49x
blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us 1.16x
blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms 1.06x
blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us 0.99x
blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us 0.9x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms 0.9x
blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us 0.85x
blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us 0.83x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us 0.82x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us 0.81x
blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms 0.78x
blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us 0.77x
blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us 0.76x
blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us 0.76x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us 0.75x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us 0.74x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us 0.74x
blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us 0.74x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us 0.74x
blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us 0.73x
blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us 0.72x
blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us 0.71x
blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us 0.69x
On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > lgtm > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > You too? Do you care? Hmm, no. Which platform? It was strictly a speedup on Linux. > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms 1.88x > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms 1.49x > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us 1.16x > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms 1.06x > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us 0.99x > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us 0.9x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms 0.9x > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us 0.85x > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us 0.83x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us 0.82x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us 0.81x > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms 0.78x > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us 0.77x > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us 0.76x > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us 0.76x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us 0.75x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us 0.74x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us 0.74x > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us 0.74x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us 0.74x > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us 0.73x > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us 0.72x > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us 0.71x > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us 0.69x
On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > lgtm > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > You too? Do you care? > > Hmm, no. (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms 1.88x > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms 1.49x > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us 1.16x > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms 1.06x > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us 0.99x > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us 0.9x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms 0.9x > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us 0.85x > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us 0.83x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us 0.82x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us 0.81x > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms 0.78x > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us 0.77x > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us 0.76x > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us 0.76x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us 0.75x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us 0.74x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us 0.74x > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us 0.74x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us 0.74x > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us 0.73x > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us 0.72x > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us 0.71x > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us 0.69x
On 2015/10/28 at 16:39:55, senorblanco wrote: > On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > > lgtm > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > > You too? Do you care? > > > > Hmm, no. > > (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms 1.88x > > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms 1.49x > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us 1.16x > > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms 1.06x > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us 0.99x > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us 0.9x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms 0.9x > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us 0.85x > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us 0.83x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us 0.82x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us 0.81x > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms 0.78x > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us 0.77x > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us 0.76x > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us 0.76x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us 0.75x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us 0.74x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us 0.74x > > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us 0.74x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us 0.74x > > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us 0.73x > > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us 0.72x > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us 0.71x > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us 0.69x Oops, now on the review: Windows 10. I'm not quite sure if it's VS2013 or VS2015's cl.exe. Will try to find out.
On 2015/10/28 at 16:43:28, mtklein wrote: > On 2015/10/28 at 16:39:55, senorblanco wrote: > > On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > > > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > > > lgtm > > > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > > > You too? Do you care? > > > > > > Hmm, no. > > > > (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms 1.88x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms 1.49x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us 1.16x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms 1.06x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us 0.99x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us 0.9x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms 0.9x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us 0.85x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us 0.83x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us 0.82x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us 0.81x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms 0.78x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us 0.77x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us 0.76x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us 0.76x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us 0.75x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us 0.74x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us 0.74x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us 0.74x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us 0.74x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us 0.73x > > > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us 0.72x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us 0.71x > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us 0.69x > > Oops, now on the review: > > Windows 10. I'm not quite sure if it's VS2013 or VS2015's cl.exe. Will try to find out. Looks like 2015 / x86-64: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\bin\amd64_x86\cl.exe"
On 2015/10/28 16:49:08, mtklein wrote: > On 2015/10/28 at 16:43:28, mtklein wrote: > > On 2015/10/28 at 16:39:55, senorblanco wrote: > > > On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > > > > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > > > > lgtm > > > > > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > > > > You too? Do you care? > > > > > > > > Hmm, no. > > > > > > (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms > 1.88x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms > 1.49x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us > 1.16x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms > 1.06x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us > 0.99x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us > 0.9x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms > 0.9x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us > 0.85x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us > 0.83x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us > 0.82x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us > 0.81x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms > 0.78x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us > 0.77x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us > 0.76x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us > 0.76x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us > 0.75x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us > 0.74x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us > 0.74x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us > 0.74x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us > 0.74x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us > 0.73x > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us > 0.72x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us > 0.71x > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us > 0.69x > > > > Oops, now on the review: > > > > Windows 10. I'm not quite sure if it's VS2013 or VS2015's cl.exe. Will try > to find out. > > Looks like 2015 / x86-64: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > 14.0\VC\bin\amd64_x86\cl.exe" Hmm. On Win7, VC 2013, 32bits, I see pretty much the same as Linux (speedup across the board). Haven't built 64bit yet.
The CQ bit was checked by senorblanco@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run
Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1426583004/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1426583004/20001
On 2015/10/28 17:05:51, Stephen White wrote: > On 2015/10/28 16:49:08, mtklein wrote: > > On 2015/10/28 at 16:43:28, mtklein wrote: > > > On 2015/10/28 at 16:39:55, senorblanco wrote: > > > > On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > > > > > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > > > > > lgtm > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > > > > > You too? Do you care? > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, no. > > > > > > > > (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms > > > 1.88x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms > > > 1.49x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us > > > 1.16x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms > > > 1.06x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us > > > 0.99x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us > > > 0.9x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms > > > 0.9x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us > > > 0.85x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us > > > 0.83x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us > > > 0.82x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us > > > 0.81x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms > > > 0.78x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us > > > 0.77x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us > > > 0.76x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us > > > 0.76x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us > > > 0.75x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us > > > 0.74x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us > > > 0.74x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us > > > 0.74x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us > > > 0.74x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us > > > 0.73x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us > > > 0.72x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us > > > 0.71x > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us > > > 0.69x > > > > > > Oops, now on the review: > > > > > > Windows 10. I'm not quite sure if it's VS2013 or VS2015's cl.exe. Will try > > to find out. > > > > Looks like 2015 / x86-64: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > > 14.0\VC\bin\amd64_x86\cl.exe" > > Hmm. On Win7, VC 2013, 32bits, I see pretty much the same as Linux (speedup > across the board). > > Haven't built 64bit yet. 64bit win seems OK too. I'm just going to land this and watch the perf bots.
On 2015/10/28 at 17:16:52, senorblanco wrote: > On 2015/10/28 17:05:51, Stephen White wrote: > > On 2015/10/28 16:49:08, mtklein wrote: > > > On 2015/10/28 at 16:43:28, mtklein wrote: > > > > On 2015/10/28 at 16:39:55, senorblanco wrote: > > > > > On 2015/10/28 16:39:25, Stephen White wrote: > > > > > > On 2015/10/28 16:14:01, mtklein wrote: > > > > > > > lgtm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm seeing a couple persistent slowdowns, e.g. > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00. > > > > > > > You too? Do you care? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, no. > > > > > > > > > > (That is, no, and yes.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_10.00 927us -> 1.75ms > > > > > 1.88x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_80.00_80.00 7.7ms -> 11.5ms > > > > > 1.49x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.00_1.00 715us -> 831us > > > > > 1.16x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_80.00_80.00 10.3ms -> 10.9ms > > > > > 1.06x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_80.00_80.00 795us -> 785us > > > > > 0.99x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_10.00_10.00 66.1us -> 59.5us > > > > > 0.9x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_80.00_80.00 1.98ms -> 1.77ms > > > > > 0.9x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_1.00_1.00 62.7us -> 53.1us > > > > > 0.85x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_cropped_0.50_0.50 63us -> 52.5us > > > > > 0.83x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_1.00 562us -> 462us > > > > > 0.82x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.00_10.00 548us -> 443us > > > > > 0.81x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_10.00 1.71ms -> 1.33ms > > > > > 0.78x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_1.00 1.05ms -> 805us > > > > > 0.77x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_10.00_0.00 696us -> 530us > > > > > 0.76x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_0.50_0.50 1.07ms -> 811us > > > > > 0.76x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_1.00 862us -> 644us > > > > > 0.75x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_0.00 454us -> 338us > > > > > 0.74x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_10.00_10.00 888us -> 661us > > > > > 0.74x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_0.50_0.50 150us -> 111us > > > > > 0.74x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_0.50_0.50 862us -> 637us > > > > > 0.74x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_1.00_1.00 165us -> 121us > > > > > 0.73x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_small_10.00_10.00 429us -> 308us > > > > > 0.72x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_cropped_1.00_0.00 455us -> 322us > > > > > 0.71x > > > > > > > blur_image_filter_large_1.00_0.00 517us -> 359us > > > > > 0.69x > > > > > > > > Oops, now on the review: > > > > > > > > Windows 10. I'm not quite sure if it's VS2013 or VS2015's cl.exe. Will try > > > to find out. > > > > > > Looks like 2015 / x86-64: "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > > > 14.0\VC\bin\amd64_x86\cl.exe" > > > > Hmm. On Win7, VC 2013, 32bits, I see pretty much the same as Linux (speedup > > across the board). > > > > Haven't built 64bit yet. > > 64bit win seems OK too. I'm just going to land this and watch the perf bots. sgtm
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.
The CQ bit was checked by senorblanco@chromium.org
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/1426583004/#ps20001 (title: "Update to ToT")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1426583004/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1426583004/20001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001) as https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/d5fa77ff6a0da93c613e8fc556d96197005ff768 |
