performance problems and possible remedies?
by Yale Zhang
Hi. I'm using Inkscape to author a comic and the slow speed for certain
things is very annoying. I'm already have OpenMP turned on and using 4
cores.
1. *large blurs are slow* - I'm an expert with writing SIMD code, so I was
thinking about vectorizing the Gaussian IIR filter with SIMD intrinsics,
even though it's harder than for a FIR. But I noticed there isn't any SIMD
code in Inkscape so does that mean it's something to avoid.
I'm pretty sure no current compiler is smart enough to vectorize it, and
besides, Inkscape is compiled with -O2, meaning -ftree-vectorize isn't on
by default.
2. *when there's a large image (raster based) background - scrolling in a
zoomed region is very slow*
I compiled the latest 0.49 code with GCC profiling and it shows this:
33.98 22.47 22.47 exp2l
21.29 36.55 14.08 log2l
17.57 48.17 11.62 pow
7.12 52.88 4.71 658 0.01 0.01
ink_cairo_surface_srgb_to_linear(_cairo_surface*)
6.72 57.32 4.44 563 0.01 0.01
ink_cairo_surface_linear_to_srgb(_cairo_surface*)
5.51 60.96 3.64 1216 0.00 0.00
Inkscape::Filters::FilterGaussian::~FilterGaussian()
5.23 64.42 3.46 internal_modf
0.59 64.81 0.39 _mcount_private
0.41 65.08 0.27 __fentry__
0.12 65.16 0.08 GC_mark_from
0.09 65.22 0.06 5579 0.00 0.00
Geom::parse_svg_path(char const*, Geom::SVGPathSink&)
0.06 65.26 0.04 35320 0.00 0.00
bounds_exact_transformed(std::vector<Geom::Path,
std::allocator<Geom::Path> > const&, Geom::Affine const&)
0.06 65.30 0.04 8 0.01 0.01
convert_pixbuf_normal_to_argb32(_GdkPixbuf*)
0.05 65.33 0.03 885444 0.00 0.00
std::vector<Geom::Linear, std::allocator<Geom::Linear>
>::_M_fill_insert(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<Geom::Linear*,
std::vector<Geom::Linear, std::allocator<Geom::Linear> > >, unsigned long
long, Geom::Linear const&)
The cost is absolutely dominated by ink_cairo_surface_srgb_to_linear() and
ink_cairo_surface_linear_to_srgb(). My first instinct was to optimize
those 2 functions, but then I thought why are those even being called every
time I scroll through the image?
Why not convert the images up front to linear and stay that way in memory?
If that can't be done, then my optimization approach is:
1. replace ink_cairo_surface_srgb_to_linear() with a simple 3rd degree
polynomial approximation (0.902590573087882 - 0.010238759806148x +
0.002825455367280x^2 + 0.000004414767235x^3) and vectorize with SSE
intrinsics. The approximation was calculated by minimizing the square error
(maxError = 0.313) over the range [10, 255]. For x < 10, it uses simple
scaling.
2. replace ink_surface_linear_to_srgb() with a vectorized implementation
of pow(). Unlike srgb_to_linear(), a low degree polynomial can't be used
due to the curve having larger high order derivatives. An alternative would
be piece wise, low order polynomials.
The main question I have is what degree of accuracy is desired? Certainly,
it doesn't need double precision pow() since the input is only 8 bits! Is
+- 0.5 from the true value (before quantization) OK or do people depend on
getting pixel perfect results?
UJ
6 years, 12 months
Create releases more regularly
by Sebastian Zartner
Hi there,
I initially asked at
inkscapeforum.com<http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15755&p=63224>and
was told to better post my request to this mailing list.
I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to create releases more regularly.
Currently there are many months or even years between each release of
Inkscape.
Bug fixes should get out more quickly and it should be possible to try out
new features of upcoming versions. Most users don't have the possibility to
build Inkscape by their own, so they have to wait for the next release.
Unfortunately the provided development downloads are not synchronized,
hosted on different third-party web sites and out of date (currently
especially the Windows version).
So I suggest to create a (more or less) fixed fast release cycle for normal
releases (e.g. every two or three months) and periodically (e.g. every one
or two weeks) create alpha versions.
Alpha versions should be built (maybe even automatically) for all supported
OSes and hosted directly on inkscape.org.
Sebastian
7 years, 7 months
Re: [Inkscape-devel] Devlibs 46 too slow
by Mark Titchener
I tried your modified build with an NVidia Quadro 1000M on Windows 7 and it
seemed okay to me.
> Le Jeudi 21 novembre 2013 9h09, Nicolas Dufour <nicoduf@...48...> a ?crit
> :
> > I'm still investigating the issue, and just found out that the computers
> I
> > used to reproduced the bug were all using an Intel GPU. Tests with an
> nvidia
> > GeForce 210 (GT218) show no slowness at all.
>
> Could some Windows users help me? I'd like to confirm the slowness only
> affects Intel graphics cards. Could you test a modified Inkscape binary
> (from ftp://download.tuxfamily.org/inkscape/inkscape-12282-cairo-1.12.8.7z),
> give your graphic card model and tell me if it's slow or not? IMHO it could
> be a blocker for 0.49 on Windows.
>
>
7 years, 7 months
non-Unicode symbol fonts do not work on Windows. Bug 165665. Do we need the flag USE_PANGO_WIN32 ?
by Alvin Penner
ref : https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/165665
I believe this bug can be fixed by disabling the flag USE_PANGO_WIN32 in
line 19 of src/libnrtype/FontFactory.h. When I do this on Windows XP, I gain
about 35 new fonts. Not all of these new fonts are useable, but the most
interesting ones, such as CommercialPi, Symbol, Technic, Webdings,
Wingdings, MonoType Sorts, TechnicLite are working well, both in Inkscape
and in IE9.
This is a Windows-specific bug which hides symbol fonts, and does not
occur in Gimp 2.6 on Win XP. As far as I can tell, the Gimp source code does
not contain any analogue or equivalent of the flag USE_PANGO_WIN32.
Would there be any objection if I disable this flag, or does it serve a
specific purpose that is essential?
tia
- Alvin Penner
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/non-Unicode-symbol-fonts-do-not-work-on-Windows.-Bu...
Sent from the Inkscape - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8 years, 4 months
Transformation center issues
by Diederik van Lierop
Hi people,
The past weeks I've been trying to fix some transformation center offset
regressions, which were caused by the new unit/viewbox stuff. That should
all work reasonably well again, but it remains a headache. IMHO this
transformation center handling is broken by design, and judging by some
comments in the code I'm not the only one to think so. It requires all
kinds of special casing everywhere transformations are being applied, due
to the transformation center being expressed in horizontal/vertical
coordinates, relative to the center of the bounding box. Does anybody know
why it was designed like this?
If there are no strong objections, then I'd propose to use absolute
coordinates, and to apply transformations as if it were simply a point of a
path. This would make code much cleaner. We will no longer need to call
document->ensureUpToDate() to force an update of the bounding box everytime
the center is requested or changed. It might also allow us to get rid of
the weird behavior of the transformation center (which should rotate with
the item in case an object is rotated!)
Not that I'm going to change this now, but I might get to this after the
0.91 release.
Diederik
8 years, 7 months
C++11 for Experimental Branch?
by Tavmjong Bah
Hi,
I noticed a bunch of 'for' loops in Liam's code and that got me
wondering about using C++11 in the experimental branch as 'auto' is so
much nicer that "std::map<SPDocument*,int>::iterator iter". When can we
start using C++11?
I noticed that http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/C%2B%2B11 only
shows results for one Window's compiler. Is there a test program we can
run? Fedora 20 is using GCC 4.8 and clang 3.4; both support 'auto' (GCC
since 4.4).
Tav
8 years, 10 months
0.91 Bug Hunt Status
by Bryce Harrington
Development focus: 0.91.x series
Pts Bug Age Date Assignee Description
=== === === ==== ======== ===========
6 1299948 0 05/11 Liam P. White LPEs with linked paths sometimes do not recalculate after undo
6 1310266 0 05/10 jazzynico Update the man page with '-i -j' for plain SVG export options
6 1315416 0 05/03 jazzynico [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with "Basic" tutorial
6 1315453 0 05/05 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with "Shapes" tutorial
6 1315457 0 05/06 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with "Advanced" tutorial
6 1315480 0 05/06 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with " Bitmap tracing" tutorial
6 1315483 0 05/06 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with " Calligraphy" tutorial
6 1315485 0 05/05 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with "Elements of Design" tutorial
6 1315487 0 05/06 Ryan Lerch [0.91 Tutorial Review] issues with "tips and tricks" tutorial
6 1316591 0 05/06 Mohamed IKBEL Boulabiar copy-paste typo in the dbus document interface
6 1318289 0 05/11 Masato HASHIMOTO preferences > bitmap > rendering shows po file headers
6 1318345 0 05/11 Masato HASHIMOTO untranslatable strings in trunk-r13348
12 1318532 0 05/12 Masato HASHIMOTO Extension/Guides creator: Render fails
3 1247448 0 05/10 bcrowell INKSCAPE_PORTABLE_PROFILE_DIR should be on man page
3 1317140 0 05/09 jazzynico Tutorials: supported generic font names in trunk have changed
3 1318328 0 05/11 Masato HASHIMOTO typo in trunk-r13348
3 1318671 0 05/12 Masato HASHIMOTO url for New in This Version is obsolete
3 1314910 0 05/01 Claus Johansen Font size specification
Total Score: 99 / 1500
Scoring:
--------
12, 9, 6, 3 for importances critical, high, medium and low
+1 point per year of the bug report's age
x2 if bug is tagged 'regression'
x2 if closed the week it was declared Bug of the Week
Bug of the Week
---------------
Ryan Lerch closed 30 points worth of bugs, due to hammering our
tutorials into shape. Ryan, would you please find us a good Bug of the
Week for May 12-18?
Bryce
8 years, 11 months
Changing trunk to 96 pixels per inch.
by Tavmjong Bah
Hi,
The experimental branch has been using 96 pixels per inch per the CSS
2.1 standard for over two months now without complaint. Is there any
objection to switching trunk to this value? As Inkscape has switched to
using 'pt' for text size by default, it is important that this change
happen to ensure that the size of text rendered in browsers match the
size of text rendered in Inkscape.
Tav
9 years
Gtk+ 3 build bit-rot alert!
by Alex Valavanis
Hello All,
I thought I'd quickly check how we're doing with the Gtk+ 3 build in
Ubuntu Utopic, and was unpleasantly surprised to see that:
(a) A tonne more symbols that have been deprecated in Gtk+ 3.10
(principally, GtkAction)
(b) We have a few regressions, and have resumed use of some deprecated
symbols that we had previously replaced. (e.g., GtkHBox)
I have updated bug #1016020 with the latest build log (20k lines
caused by deprecation warnings!!) and summarised the failures in the
description.
Obviously, (a) isn't our fault, but we should try to regain the
progress we had made! (b) is more of a concern, since we're actually
moving backwards!
Ultimately, we should really try to enforce
"-Werror=deprecated-declarations" in our dev builds, but clearly we're
far away from that goal. Would it be reasonable to target a
deprecation-free build for Inkscape 1.0?
In the meantime, can I please request that from now on, everyone runs
a strict build with both Gtk+ 2 and Gtk+ 3 before merging in any new
features, so that we can ensure that we're not introducing any new
warnings?
Thanks,
AV
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/1016020
9 years
Stroke placement
by Tavmjong Bah
Hi,
We discussed variable placement of stroke (e.g. inside/outside/10%
inside,90% outside). The key to implementing this is having a good way
to offset a path as then one can use existing rendering libraries to
draw the stroke (including things like dashes, line-caps).
If I can provide a clear (testable) algorithm for how to offset a path,
there is a good chance we can get this into SVG 2. The current Inkscape
code for offsetting is a bit buggy. I believe lib2geom has better code.
Can anybody comment?
Thanks,
Tav
9 years
