[Pixman] [PATCH 1/2] Remove the 8e extra safety margin in COVER_CLIP analysis
Siarhei Siamashka
siarhei.siamashka at gmail.com
Sun Sep 20 22:46:37 PDT 2015
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 08:32:48 +0300
Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:30:23 +0300
> Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Ben Avison <bavison at riscosopen.org>
> >
> > As discussed in
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/2015-August/003905.html
> >
> > the 8 * pixman_fixed_e (8e) adjustment which was applied to the transformed
> > coordinates is a legacy of rounding errors which used to occur in old
> > versions of Pixman, but which no longer apply. For any affine transform,
> > you are now guaranteed to get the same result by transforming the upper
> > coordinate as though you transform the lower coordinate and add (size-1)
> > steps of the increment in source coordinate space.
>
> That's actually what I wanted too see proven. Let's take a look at the
> following affine transformation matrix (with 16.16 fixed point values)
> and two vectors:
>
> | a b c |
> M = | d e f |
> | 0 0 0x10000 |
>
> | x_dst |
> P = | y_dst |
> | 0x10000 |
>
> | 0x10000 |
> ONE_X = | 0 |
> | 0 |
>
> The current matrix multiplication code does the following calculations:
>
> | (a * x_dst + b * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + c |
> M * P = | (d * x_dst + e * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + f |
> | 0x10000 |
>
> These calculations are not perfectly exact and we may get rounding
> because the integer coordinates are adjusted by 0.5 (or 0x8000 in the
> 16.16 fixed point format) before doing matrix multiplication. For
> example, if the 'a' coefficient is an odd number and 'b' is zero,
> then we are losing some of the least significant bits when dividing by
> 0x10000.
>
> So we need to strictly prove that the following expression is always
> true even though we have to deal with rounding:
>
> | a |
> M * (P + ONE_X) - M * P = M * ONE_X = | 0 |
> | 0 |
Sorry, this should be:
| a |
M * (P + ONE_X) - M * P = M * ONE_X = | d |
| 0 |
It does not change anything though ('d' treatment is not very much
different from how we deal with 'a').
> or
>
> ((a * (x_dst + 0x10000) + b * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + c)
> -
> ((a * x_dst + b * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + c)
> =
> a
>
> It's easy to see that this is equivalent to
>
> a + ((a * x_dst + b * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + c)
> - ((a * x_dst + b * y_dst + 0x8000) / 0x10000 + c)
> =
> a
>
> Which means that stepping exactly by one pixel horizontally in the
> destination image space (advancing 'x_dst' by 0x10000) is the same as
> changing the transformed 'x_src' coordinate in the source image space
> exactly by 'a'. The same applies to the vertical direction too.
> Repeating these steps, we can reach any pixel in the source image
> space and get exactly the same fixed point coordinates as doing
> matrix multiplications per each pixel.
>
> By the way, the older matrix multiplication implementation, which was
> relying on less accurate calculations with three intermediate roundings
> "((a + 0x8000) >> 16) + ((b + 0x8000) >> 16) + ((c + 0x8000) >> 16)",
> also has the same properties. However reverting
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/commit/?id=ed39992564beefe6b12f81e842caba11aff98a9c
> and applying this "Remove the 8e extra safety margin in COVER_CLIP
> analysis" patch makes the cover test fail. The real reason why it fails
> is that the old pixman code was using "pixman_transform_point_3d()"
> function
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/tree/pixman/pixman-matrix.c?id=pixman-0.28.2#n49
> for getting the transformed coordinate of the top left corner pixel
> in the image scaling code, but at the same time using a different
> "pixman_transform_point()" function
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/tree/pixman/pixman-matrix.c?id=pixman-0.28.2#n82
> in the extents calculation code for setting the cover flag. And these
> functions did the intermediate rounding differently. That's why the 8e
> safety margin was needed.
>
> Since we are trying to justify the 8e extra safety margin removal in
> the context of this patch, this is what I wanted to see explained in
> the commit message. But maybe I'm just bad at math and it was perfectly
> obvious to everyone else without any special proof.
>
> > No projective transform routines use the COVER_CLIP flags, so they
> > cannot be affected.
> >
> > However, for COVER_CLIP_NEAREST, the actual margins added were not 8e.
> > Because the half-way cases round down, that is, coordinate 0 hits pixel
> > index -1 while coordinate e hits pixel index 0, the extra safety margins
> > were actually 7e to the left and up, and 9e to the right and down. This
> > patch removes the 7e and 9e margins and restores the -e adjustment
> > required for NEAREST sampling in Pixman. For reference, see
> > pixman/rounding.txt.
> >
> > For COVER_CLIP_BILINEAR, the margins were exactly 8e as there are no
> > additional offsets to be restored, so simply removing the 8e additions
> > is enough.
> >
> > Proof:
> >
> > All implementations must give the same numerical results as
> > bits_image_fetch_pixel_nearest() / bits_image_fetch_pixel_bilinear().
> >
> > The former does
> > int x0 = pixman_fixed_to_int (x - pixman_fixed_e);
> > which maps directly to the new test for the nearest flag, when you consider
> > that x0 must fall in the interval [0,width).
> >
> > The latter does
> > x1 = x - pixman_fixed_1 / 2;
> > x1 = pixman_fixed_to_int (x1);
> > x2 = x1 + 1;
> > but then x2 is brought back in range by the repeat() function, so it can't
> > stray beyond the end of the source line.
>
> The wording does not look very good here. It seems to imply that the
> repeat() function has some special use in the latter (BILINEAR) case.
> But the repeat handling is exactly the same for NEAREST and BILINEAR.
> Also for NONE repeat and fetching pixels from the outside of the source
> image bounds, we are not bringing the coordinate back into range but
> interpreting the pixel value as zero.
>
> > When you write a COVER path, you are effectively omitting the repeat()
> > function.
> >
> > As samplers are allowed to fetch the pixel at x2 unconditionally, we
> > require
> > x1 >= 0
> > x2 < width
> > so
> > x - pixman_fixed_1 / 2 >= 0
> > x - pixman_fixed_1 / 2 + pixman_fixed_1 < width * pixman_fixed_1
> > so
> > pixman_fixed_to_int (x - pixman_fixed_1 / 2) >= 0
> > pixman_fixed_to_int (x + pixman_fixed_1 / 2) < width
> > which matches the source code lines for the bilinear case, once you delete
> > the lines that add the 8e margin.
>
> Thanks for explaining this. It was not the part that I was worried
> about, but it is still good to have it nonetheless.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Avison <bavison at riscosopen.org>
> > [Pekka: adjusted commit message, left affine-bench changes for another patch]
> > Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen at collabora.co.uk>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > This is v2 part 1/2 of the patch "Change conditions for setting
> > FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP flags".
> > ---
> > pixman/pixman.c | 17 ++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/pixman/pixman.c b/pixman/pixman.c
> > index a07c577..f932eac 100644
> > --- a/pixman/pixman.c
> > +++ b/pixman/pixman.c
> > @@ -497,21 +497,12 @@ analyze_extent (pixman_image_t *image,
> > if (!compute_transformed_extents (transform, extents, &transformed))
> > return FALSE;
> >
> > - /* Expand the source area by a tiny bit so account of different rounding that
> > - * may happen during sampling. Note that (8 * pixman_fixed_e) is very far from
> > - * 0.5 so this won't cause the area computed to be overly pessimistic.
> > - */
> > - transformed.x1 -= 8 * pixman_fixed_e;
> > - transformed.y1 -= 8 * pixman_fixed_e;
> > - transformed.x2 += 8 * pixman_fixed_e;
> > - transformed.y2 += 8 * pixman_fixed_e;
> > -
> > if (image->common.type == BITS)
> > {
> > - if (pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.x1) >= 0 &&
> > - pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.y1) >= 0 &&
> > - pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.x2) < image->bits.width &&
> > - pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.y2) < image->bits.height)
> > + if (pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.x1 - pixman_fixed_e) >= 0 &&
> > + pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.y1 - pixman_fixed_e) >= 0 &&
> > + pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.x2 - pixman_fixed_e) < image->bits.width &&
> > + pixman_fixed_to_int (transformed.y2 - pixman_fixed_e) < image->bits.height)
> > {
> > *flags |= FAST_PATH_SAMPLES_COVER_CLIP_NEAREST;
> > }
>
> Acked-by: Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamashka at gmail.com>
>
> It's up to you whether to update the commit message or not. Maybe the
> already existing reference to the mailing list archive is already
> sufficient.
>
--
Best regards,
Siarhei Siamashka
More information about the Pixman
mailing list