Re: Speeding up thumbnail generation (like multi threaded). Thoughts please.
- From: Mark <markg85 gmail com>
- To: Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Speeding up thumbnail generation (like multi threaded). Thoughts please.
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:58:24 +0200
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 12:36 +0200, Mark wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 22:59 +0200, Mark wrote:
>> >> hehe that was the idea indeed ^_^ and i will continue with that.
>> >> I will test the large factors tomorrow.
>> >> For now i'm happy with 100% cpu usage on all my cores (4).
>> >> with the code posted in my previous message i only had 70% cpu usage
>> >> so there was a bottleneck and it wasn't the HDD nor the CPU.
>> >> Now that's fixed with giving each thread more then one (5 actually)
>> >> images of it's own before locking and refilling the queue of 5 so now
>> >> there is 100% cpu usage in the multi threaded benchmark.
>> >> http://codepad.org/PKnp69qW
>> > Ok, i tested this a bit, and my results are not the same as yours.
>> > I tested on a directory with 1348 jpeg files, each aroung 5 megapixels,
>> > totalling 3.1 gig of data.
>> > Before each test I ran (as root):
>> > sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>> > This flushes the caches, for two reasons: make the tests comparable
>> > (i.e. same cache status), and to make the test realistic (nobody
>> > thumbnails 3 gig of files that are all in the cache).
>> > You test is scaling to size 200, which is not the thumbnail size (128),
>> > but lets ignore that for now.
>> > // GLib Thumbnailing Benchmark
>> > There is a bug in the benchmark, where it saves the original pixbuf
>> > rather than the thumbnailed one, making this very very slow. When I
>> > fixed this i get this timing:
>> > real 3m40.876s
>> > user 3m19.667s
>> > sys 0m2.542s
>> > Same test but, using gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf():
>> > real 3m34.784s
>> > user 3m13.926s
>> > sys 0m2.479s
>> > So, for me gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf() is ~3% faster
>> > (which makes some sense, as its using a simpler algorithm). Did you
>> > compile your benchmark app with full optimization? (since you have an
>> > in-line copy of the scale_down_pixbuf function this is required)
>> > (The rest of the tests are all run with gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple for easy
>> > comparison.
>> > // Glib more rapid thumbnailing benchmark
>> > real 1m56.650s
>> > user 1m24.030s
>> > sys 0m2.622s
>> > Here we can see that the jpeg loading trick really helps us.
>> > //Glib threaded thumbnailing
>> > My machine has 2 cores, not 4 as yours.
>> > With the default 4 threads:
>> > real 2m2.194s
>> > user 1m25.437s
>> > sys 0m2.982s
>> > Changed to use two threads:
>> > real 1m53.783s
>> > user 1m25.948s
>> > sys 0m2.966s
>> > If we use the same number of threads as cpus we go slightly faster
>> > (approximately 2.6% less time). However, if we use more things are
>> > actually slower.
>> > I've got 4 gigs of memory, so not everything will fit in the cache, but
>> > the caches would probably help a bit, to verify this i ran the same
>> > two-thread example without blowing the caches first:
>> > real 1m36.681s
>> > user 1m21.610s
>> > sys 0m2.501s
>> > So, slighly better, and we can see that the real time is getting nearer
>> > to the user time, which means that less time were spent waiting on disk.
>> > However, i'm not sure how interesting a cached benchmark is. Nobody will
>> > thumbnail the same files twice.
>> > Now, what does this mean for Nautilus....
>> > Well, nautilus loads the files using gdk-pixbuf io-based resizing, which
>> > is essentially what "Glib more rapid" does. I.E. it uses the jpeg
>> > loading trick and scales using gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple. It calls
>> > gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf() only when an external
>> > thumbnailer returns an oversize result (i.e. very seldom).
>> > Given the above result this is not ideal. The ideal would be to use the
>> > jpeg loader trick but then downscale with
>> > gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf(), although that is hard to
>> > implement given the pixbuf APIs.
>> > Nautilus uses only one thread for thumbnailing, and upping this to the
>> > number of cpus of the machine could gain us a slight advantage, at the
>> > risk of starving the rest of nautilus by the increase in i/o traffic.
>> Hi Alex,
>> nice benching. i will fix that little issue in "// GLib Thumbnailing
>> Benchmark" to save the thumbnail pixbuff.
>> Then i hope the gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf is really
>> faster like it states. And if that's the case perhaps it's time to
>> make a gdk_pixbuf_new_from_file_at_scale that uses
> Its faster because it uses a simpler algorithm, so its not generally
> useful, however it might be nice to allow it optionally, like adding a
> new filter type and let you pass in a filter to the scaling loader.
the filter structure in glib seems... extremely complex.
Lets first just make this FAST before we (or i) start try to make this
as a new filter type.
Also i think the bilinear filter type is just fine for me since it's
just that only faster.
>> note that the scaling performance is just a minor part of the complete
>> picture. If the loading/saving of files could be made faster in any
>> way that would give the most speed boosts.
> Yes indeed. File load speed is very important here, but there really
> isn't that much you can do on the app side.
And is there anything possible in glib?
The thing i noticed in earlier posts (from late last month in this
thread) is that there is a big usage of gpointers... so perhaps it's
possible to optimize something there?
>> As for "full optimization" to make it worse.. all my benchmarks where
>> ren in debug compile mode. So not representative if did for one test
>> but i did that for all tests so that probably makes it fair again..?
> Only if you compiled your gdk-pixbuf library with debug mode, and even
> then its not certain because it has assembler versions of the scaler i
> It would be fair if you used the optimized version of
> gnome_desktop_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf() from libgnomedesktop though.
That is this one right:
....? that is the one i included in the benchmark. If that isn't the
one you mean then which one is it? (link please)
] [Thread Prev