[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL perf regression tests moved to GitHub; design still in flux

Benoit and I had some conversations about this yesterday; doing perf tests here is tricky.

> 2) It's not clear that setTimeout(0) has any use. If one wants to
> measure stuff unrelated to compositing, postMessage should be at least
> as good as setTimeout(0) and often better in current browsers (not
> throttled). So we should be able to do with only RAF and postMessage.
> 3) When using postMessage, one should measure only the time taken by the
> payload, instead of measuring the lapse of time between two
> consecutive callbacks.

It depends on what you're timing.  If you want a benchmark that just times how long WebGL calls take, then something like:

  var t0 = window.performance.now();
  var elapsed = window.performance.now() - t0;

should be enough.  Do enough of those, triggered via setTimeout(0) to avoid blocking the browser, and you should have a good time recording.  But that will only measure the actual WebGL calls + GPU execution time; if you want to measure the entire rendering pipeline, that'll be trickier.

I originally suggested using postMessage instead of rAF because rAF will aim to give you 60fps (or whatever) and won't give you anything faster, whereas postMessage is unthrottled [for now]... but there's no guarantee that a full composite run will happen in between postMessage message events, so it doesn't actually help.  Ideally you'd have:

|--- Frame 1 --------| |--- Frame 2 --------| ...
[callback] [composite] [callback] [composite]

and you could measure the start of frame 2 minus the start of frame 1 as the time, but if you're using postMessage, you could easily get:

[callback] [callback] [composite] [callback] [composite] [callback] [callback] [callback] [composite] ... etc.

since there's no guarantee that you'll get a full frame per callback.

Benoit came up with an interesting approach to actually measure this, though.  We should use requestAnimationFrame, but then adjust the payload until we -just- hit 60fps (or whatever the target cap is).  Pick some GPU workload that you're measuring (perhaps a really simple one if you want to measure compositing overhead) and run it in a loop in the frame callback; keep increasing the number of loop iterations until you start dropping under 60fps.  The result of the test is the number of iterations of the workload you can run during a frame and still maintain 60fps.  If the browser's compositing overhead increases, then the number of iterations you can do decreases; similarly, if the time it takes to execute an iteration goes up, the final score decreases as well.

Benoit suggested that we try to keep the result of that be time, but I don't think we should; I'm not sure if time has any specific meaning there (because unless you call glFinish you don't really know who's going to be paying the full GPU cost); better to keep the two separate.

So, that said, I think there are really only two types of tests that we need:

1 - tests that measure WebGL call speed; these can be run from setTimeout(0) and will just measure raw elapsed time for a set of calls.

2 - tests that measure full compositing performance; these should run from requestAnimationFrame, and should use the approach bjacob came up with above.

This -should- give us pretty solid perf coverage; it should be very useful as a performance regression test for WebGL implementations.  In theory, all tests could be run as #2, though that will only really give us 16ms precision for time.. and for some things (texture conversion speed on upload, for example) smaller time differences could result.

   - Vlad

You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl