SkThreadPool ~~> SkTaskGroup
SkTaskGroup is like SkThreadPool except the threads stay in
one global pool. Each SkTaskGroup itself is tiny (4 bytes)
and its wait() method applies only to tasks add()ed to that
instance, not the whole thread pool.
This means we don't need to bring up new thread pools when
tests themselves want to use multithreading (e.g. pathops,
quilt). We just create a new SkTaskGroup and wait for that
to complete. This should be more efficient, and allow us
to expand where we use threads to really latency sensitive
places. E.g. we can probably now use these in nanobench
for CPU .skp rendering.
Now that all threads are sharing the same pool, I think we
can remove most of the custom mechanism pathops tests use
to control threading. They'll just ride on the global pool
with all other tests now.
This (temporarily?) removes the GPU multithreading feature
from DM, which we don't use.
On my desktop, DM runs a little faster (57s -> 55s) in
Debug, and a lot faster in Release (36s -> 24s). The bots
show speedups of similar proportions, cutting more than a
minute off the N4/Release and Win7/Debug runtimes.
BUG=skia:
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/9c7207b5dc71dc5a96a2eb107d401133333d5b6f
R=caryclark@google.com, bsalomon@google.com, bungeman@google.com, mtklein@google.com, reed@google.com
Author: mtklein@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/531653002
diff --git a/dm/DMTask.cpp b/dm/DMTask.cpp
index 05eda4e..5ceb53b 100644
--- a/dm/DMTask.cpp
+++ b/dm/DMTask.cpp
@@ -38,8 +38,8 @@
fReporter->printStatus(this->name(), SkTime::GetMSecs() - fStart);
}
-void Task::spawnChildNext(CpuTask* task) {
- fTaskRunner->addNext(task);
+void Task::reallySpawnChild(CpuTask* task) {
+ fTaskRunner->add(task);
}
CpuTask::CpuTask(Reporter* reporter, TaskRunner* taskRunner) : Task(reporter, taskRunner) {}
@@ -56,32 +56,32 @@
void CpuTask::spawnChild(CpuTask* task) {
// Run children serially on this (CPU) thread. This tends to save RAM and is usually no slower.
- // Calling spawnChildNext() is nearly equivalent, but it'd pointlessly contend on the
- // threadpool; spawnChildNext() is most useful when you want to change threadpools.
+ // Calling reallySpawnChild() is nearly equivalent, but it'd pointlessly contend on the
+ // threadpool; reallySpawnChild() is most useful when you want to change threadpools.
task->run();
}
GpuTask::GpuTask(Reporter* reporter, TaskRunner* taskRunner) : Task(reporter, taskRunner) {}
-void GpuTask::run(GrContextFactory& factory) {
+void GpuTask::run(GrContextFactory* factory) {
if (FLAGS_gpu && !this->shouldSkip()) {
this->start();
- if (!FLAGS_dryRun) this->draw(&factory);
+ if (!FLAGS_dryRun) this->draw(factory);
this->finish();
if (FLAGS_abandonGpuContext) {
- factory.abandonContexts();
+ factory->abandonContexts();
}
if (FLAGS_resetGpuContext || FLAGS_abandonGpuContext) {
- factory.destroyContexts();
+ factory->destroyContexts();
}
}
SkDELETE(this);
}
void GpuTask::spawnChild(CpuTask* task) {
- // Really spawn a new task so it runs on the CPU threadpool instead of the GPU one we're on now.
+ // Spawn a new task so it runs on the CPU threadpool instead of the GPU one we're on now.
// It goes on the front of the queue to minimize the time we must hold reference bitmaps in RAM.
- this->spawnChildNext(task);
+ this->reallySpawnChild(task);
}
} // namespace DM