[cworth.org] / src / exa / i965 / emulating_speedups.mdwn

[[meta title="Emulating the future of the i965 driver"]]

[[tag exa performance xorg]]

Earlier this week I [[isolated_some_bugs|synchronous_composite]] that
are currently causing a 4x slowdown with EXA and the i965 driver
compared to using the NoAccel option of the X server.

Some people have wondered if the discouraging results I have found so
far suggest that we should give up on hardware acceleration or that
EXA as an acceleration architecture is doomed. I think the answer is
no on both points. I think we're just seeing typical behavior of new
code that needs some optimization.

# EXA without acceleration

The first experiment is a very simple one to ensure that the 4x
slowdown isn't an unavoidable aspect of having EXA enabled. In this
experiment I first
[[disabled_the_accelerated-compositing_functions|Disable-acceleration-from-i965-EXA-hooks.patch]]
in the i965 driver, then I
[[disabled_EXA_migration|Disable-all-EXA-migration.patch]]. The net
result of this experiment is that the X server will still go through
the EXA paths, but will basically use all the same software-fallbacks
for compositing that are used in the case of NoAccel. The performance
with this patch can be compared to the NoAccel case here.

<dl class="chart barchart">
    <dt><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/system.oprofile">NoAccel</a> (<a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/timing">14.4 ms.</a>) <a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/system.symbols">symbols profile</a></dt>
    <dd style="width:83.7209%;">
        <ul>
            <li class="libpixman" style="width:45.4062%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libpixman.oprofile">libpixman</a><span>45%</span></li>
            <li class="libxul" style="width:18.1849%;">libxul<span>18%</span></li>
            <li class="vmlinux" style="width:13.3098%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/vmlinux.oprofile">vmlinux</a><span>13%</span></li>
            <li class="Xorg" style="width:7.7082%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/Xorg.oprofile">Xorg</a><span>8%</span></li>
            <li class="libc-2_5" style="width:5.1990%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libc-2.5.oprofile">libc-2.5</a><span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="oprofiled" style="width:2.8155%;">oprofiled<span>3%</span></li>
            <li class="libfb" style="width:2.0193%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libfb.oprofile">libfb</a><span>2%</span></li>
            <li class="other" style="width:5.3571%;">other<span>5%</span></li>
        </ul>
    </dd>
    <dt><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/system.oprofile">EXA-without-accel</a> (<a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/timing">15.7 ms.</a>) <a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/system.symbols">symbols profile</a></dt>
    <dd style="width:91.2791%;">
        <ul>
            <li class="libpixman" style="width:42.0541%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libpixman.oprofile">libpixman</a><span>42%</span></li>
            <li class="libxul" style="width:15.7266%;">libxul<span>16%</span></li>
            <li class="vmlinux" style="width:12.6525%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/vmlinux.oprofile">vmlinux</a><span>13%</span></li>
            <li class="Xorg" style="width:9.0172%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/Xorg.oprofile">Xorg</a><span>9%</span></li>
            <li class="oprofiled" style="width:5.0459%;">oprofiled<span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="libc-2_5" style="width:4.9173%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libc-2.5.oprofile">libc-2.5</a><span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="libexa" style="width:3.1229%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libexa.oprofile">libexa</a><span>3%</span></li>
            <li class="libfb" style="width:2.1381%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libfb.oprofile">libfb</a><span>2%</span></li>
            <li class="other" style="width:5.3254%;">other<span>5%</span></li>
        </ul>
    </dd>
</dl>

It's worth pointing out that with this change, everything still
renders correctly. Basically, we're using the same rendering code as
in the NoAccel case, but we're using EXA to get there. And we can see
that there is some overhead to EXA seen here, (a 10% slowdown), but
nothing like the 400% slowdown seen before. There's certainly no
indication here that EXA is doomed to be horribly slow, for
example.

Now, this experiment does miss overhead in EXA having to do with
managing video memory, (since I disabled all migration so everything
lives in system memory). We'll be able to see this additional overhead
below.

# Emulating future i965 speedups

The above experiment is still pretty boring---it's still just
measuring software-fallback performance. A much more interesting
experiment allows us to start exploring where will be able to get with
some un-broken hardware acceleration.

My [[previous_post|synchronous_composite]] highlighted two significant
problems preventing the current code from having good performance:

 * Time lost migrating pixmaps with memcpy

 * Time wasted while the driver busy-waited between operations

Here's a run-down of what I could find about progress on solving these
two problems:

## Excessive migration

When I looked closer at what was causing the pixmap migration, I found
that much of it was due to glyph images being pinned to system memory,
(recall that the benchmark I'm using is Mozilla Firefox on a page
consisting of mostly text). I asked Keith Packard about why these
glyph images are being pinned to system memory, and he explained that
what was preventing the glyphs from migrating is that the X server has
not been using straight Pixmaps for glyphs, but something slightly
different.

Keith is already mostly finished with a change to make the server use
Pixmaps for glyphs. Apparently there is one slight snag in that
Pixmaps are a per-screen resource while glyphs are not. For now, that
could be worked around by using one Pixmap per screen, (until Pixmaps
and other resources can be made global within the server).

So, hopefully that glyph pinning problem will be fixed. Meanwhile,
it's fairly silly that there's a bunch of memcpy operations to migrate
things from "system" to "video" memory on the i965 anyway. This card
doesn't have dedicated video memory, but just uses system memory
anyway, (all that's needed is for some entries to be set in the GART
table, and for some alignment constraints to be satisfied). So it
should be possible to eliminate all of this memcpy time anyway.

I'm told that the long-awaited memory management work, (TTM), is what
will solve this. I don't know what the status of that work is, but
hopefully it will be ready soon. does anyone have some pointers for
more information on TTM status?

## Synchronous compositing

I characterized this problem fairly well in my previous post. Eric
Anholt suggested a first quick step toward improving the situation
would be to use an array of state buffers. With N buffers we could
make the waiting happen only 1/N as frequently as it's currently
happening. So that's something that even someone like me without any
detailed documentation on the i965 could do.

And with a little more smarts, (from someone with more information),
we could presumably reclaim buffers that the hardware was done with
without having to do any waiting at all.

So it shouldn't be too long before the waiting can be eliminated or
reduced to an arbitrarily small amount of time.

## Results

Given these identified solutions for the current known problems, (and
much of the work in progress already), the next question I want to ask
is what will things look like when these are solved?

I implemented quick patches to both
[[EXA|Emulate-infinitely-fast-migration-disable-memcpy.patch]] and the
[[i965_driver|Emulate-infinitely-fast-i965-compositing-make-check.patch]]
to emulate the time being spent on migration and compositing going to
zero. That's not totally realistic, but is at least a best-case look
at where we'll be with these problems fixed. And here's what it looks
like (with the previous results repeated for comparison):

<dl class="chart barchart">
    <dt><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/system.oprofile">NoAccel</a> (<a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/timing">14.4 ms.</a>) <a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/system.symbols">symbols profile</a></dt>
    <dd style="width:83.7209%;">
        <ul>
            <li class="libpixman" style="width:45.4062%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libpixman.oprofile">libpixman</a><span>45%</span></li>
            <li class="libxul" style="width:18.1849%;">libxul<span>18%</span></li>
            <li class="vmlinux" style="width:13.3098%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/vmlinux.oprofile">vmlinux</a><span>13%</span></li>
            <li class="Xorg" style="width:7.7082%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/Xorg.oprofile">Xorg</a><span>8%</span></li>
            <li class="libc-2_5" style="width:5.1990%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libc-2.5.oprofile">libc-2.5</a><span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="oprofiled" style="width:2.8155%;">oprofiled<span>3%</span></li>
            <li class="libfb" style="width:2.0193%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/NoAccel/libfb.oprofile">libfb</a><span>2%</span></li>
            <li class="other" style="width:5.3571%;">other<span>5%</span></li>
        </ul>
    </dd>
    <dt><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/system.oprofile">EXA-without-accel</a> (<a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/timing">15.7 ms.</a>) <a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/system.symbols">symbols profile</a></dt>
    <dd style="width:91.2791%;">
        <ul>
            <li class="libpixman" style="width:42.0541%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libpixman.oprofile">libpixman</a><span>42%</span></li>
            <li class="libxul" style="width:15.7266%;">libxul<span>16%</span></li>
            <li class="vmlinux" style="width:12.6525%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/vmlinux.oprofile">vmlinux</a><span>13%</span></li>
            <li class="Xorg" style="width:9.0172%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/Xorg.oprofile">Xorg</a><span>9%</span></li>
            <li class="oprofiled" style="width:5.0459%;">oprofiled<span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="libc-2_5" style="width:4.9173%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libc-2.5.oprofile">libc-2.5</a><span>5%</span></li>
            <li class="libexa" style="width:3.1229%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libexa.oprofile">libexa</a><span>3%</span></li>
            <li class="libfb" style="width:2.1381%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-without-accel/libfb.oprofile">libfb</a><span>2%</span></li>
            <li class="other" style="width:5.3254%;">other<span>5%</span></li>
        </ul>
    </dd>
    <dt><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/system.oprofile">EXA-emulate-speedups</a> (<a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/timing">17.2 ms.</a>) <a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/system.symbols">symbols profile</a></dt>
    <dd style="width:100%;">
        <ul>
            <li class="libxul" style="width:19.6803%;">libxul<span>20%</span></li>
            <li class="libpixman" style="width:16.8573%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/libpixman.oprofile">libpixman</a><span>17%</span></li>
            <li class="vmlinux" style="width:13.1026%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/vmlinux.oprofile">vmlinux</a><span>13%</span></li>
            <li class="libexa" style="width:11.9970%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/libexa.oprofile">libexa</a><span>12%</span></li>
            <li class="libc-2_5" style="width:11.4997%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/libc-2.5.oprofile">libc-2.5</a><span>11%</span></li>
            <li class="intel_drv" style="width:9.4984%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/intel_drv.oprofile">intel_drv</a><span>9%</span></li>
            <li class="Xorg" style="width:7.3488%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/Xorg.oprofile">Xorg</a><span>7%</span></li>
            <li class="oprofiled" style="width:3.3068%;">oprofiled<span>3%</span></li>
            <li class="other" style="width:6.7091%;"><a href="/exa/i965/emulating_speedups/EXA-emulate-speedups/other.oprofile">other</a><span>7%</span></li>
        </ul>
    </dd>
</dl>

Note that in this experiment, rendered results are not at all correct,
(basically, no text appears, for example).

And, still, things aren't faster than NoAccel, but there's definitely
still lots of room for improvement. For example, the pixman profile
shows compositing, (fbCombineInU and fbFetch_a1) that should be moved
to the hardware, (particularly when the hardware is infinitely fast
like it is in my emulation here!).

After that, pixman's rasterization would be at the top of the pixman
profile. I've been wanting rasterization to show up at the top of a
profile for a long time so I could have an excuse to implement some
ideas I have for much faster software rasterization, (and to explore
using the hardware for rasterization as well). And, for some
applications doing much more than just rendering text, rasterization
might already be a lot closer to the top.

So that shows what software operations aren't hooked up to be
accelerated yet. What else is here? As I pointed out before, (and is
much easier to see in this chart than the one from earlier this week),
libxul is mysteriously getting slower once the i965 gets involved, but
libxul really shouldn't care. So that will be something to investigate
by actually building mozilla with debug symbols.

Also, there's also significantly more overhead in libexa in this chart
compared to those above. So there's some room for improvement there,
(ExaOffscreenMarkUsed is at the top of the profile, and as I've
mentioned before it looks ripe for improvement).

Finally, the i965 driver is still burning a lot of time in its wait
function here. I'm not sure what the cause of that is this time since
I've eliminated all calls to the wait function from
`i965_prepare_composite` and `i965_composite` in this experiment.

Oh, and the big libc time in this chart is from gettimeofday, (which I
showed how to eliminate earlier). That patch hasn't been accepted
upstream yet, and it wasn't included in this run.

As always, I've tried to make as much data available as possible, (you
can even change the .oprofile extensions on the links to .callgraph
for more data---but I often can't make sense of oprofile callgraph
reports myself). So I'd be glad for anybody to dig in deeper and
provide any useful feedback.