mirror/tracy
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/wolfpld/tracy.git synced 2024-11-29 16:54:35 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Benchmark reword.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bartosz Taudul 2017-12-18 17:31:26 +01:00
parent 533c1f2fdd
commit 1cb12f74c4
1 changed files with 5 additions and 10 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
README.md
View File

@ -28,17 +28,12 @@ Tracy is split into client and server side. The client side collects events usin
### Performance impact
To check how much slowdown is introduced by using tracy, I have profiled [etcpak](https://bitbucket.org/wolfpld/etcpak), which is the fastest ETC texture compression utility there is. I used an 8192×8192 test image as input data and instrumented everything down to the 4×4 pixel block compression function (that's a lot of blocks to compress). There are two scenarios that were tested:
1. Compression of an image to ETC1 format.
2. Compression of an image to ETC2 format, with mip-maps.
It should be noted that tracy needs to calibrate its internal timers at each run. This introduces a delay of 115 ms (on my machine), which is negligible when doing lengthy profiling runs, but it skews the results of etcpak timing. The following times have this delay subtracted, to give focus on zone collection impact, which is the thing that really matters here.
To check how much slowdown is introduced by using tracy, I have profiled [etcpak](https://bitbucket.org/wolfpld/etcpak), which is the fastest ETC texture compression utility there is. I used an 8192×8192 test image as input data and instrumented everything down to the 4×4 pixel block compression function (that's 4 million blocks to compress). It should be noted that tracy needs to calibrate its internal timers at each run. This introduces a delay of 115 ms (on my machine), which is negligible when doing lengthy profiling runs, but it skews the results of etcpak timing. The following times have this delay subtracted, to give focus on zone collection impact, which is the thing that really matters here.
| Scenario | Zones | Clean run | Profiling run | Difference |
|----------|---------|-----------|---------------|------------|
| 1 | 4194568 | 0.94 s | 1.003 s | +0.063 s |
| 2 | 5592822 | 1.034 s | 1.119 s | +0.085 s |
|-------------------------------------------------------|---------|-----------|---------------|------------|
| Compression of an image to ETC1 format | 4194568 | 0.94 s | 1.003 s | +0.063 s |
| Compression of an image to ETC2 format, with mip-maps | 5592822 | 1.034 s | 1.119 s | +0.085 s |
In both scenarios the per-zone time cost is at ~15 ns. This is in line with the measured 8 ns single event collection time (each zone has to report start and end event).