Performance is ~10-30x worse than Cairo

[usedbytes]

Perhaps this doesn't qualify as an issue per-se, but I wanted to use draw2d as the renderer in my program (instead of Cairo). However, even in simple cases, draw2dimg performs at least 10-30x worse than the equivalent Cairo code via cgo.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong? (I hope so)

Simple benchmark test below draws filled squares with an outline, performing ~30x worse on draw2d than Cairo. When the drawn surface is 1:1 blitted to another surface, the gap closes to ~10x

package main

import (
    "flag"
    "image"
    "image/color"
    "image/png"
    "log"
    "os"
    "testing"

    "github.com/ungerik/go-cairo"
    "github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dimg"
)

var dumpImage bool

func TestMain(m *testing.M) {
    flag.BoolVar(&dumpImage, "dump", false, "Dump a PNG image from each benchmark for comparison")
    flag.Parse()

    os.Exit(m.Run())
}

func BenchmarkDraw2D(b *testing.B) {
    img := image.NewRGBA(image.Rect(0, 0, 500, 500))
    ctx := draw2dimg.NewGraphicContext(img)

    for n := 0; n < b.N; n++ {
        ctx.SetStrokeColor(color.RGBA{0xff, 0x00, 0x00, 0xff})
        ctx.SetFillColor(color.RGBA{0x4d, 0x4d, 0x4d, 0xff})
        ctx.SetLineWidth(2)
        ctx.MoveTo(1, 1)
        ctx.LineTo(499, 1)
        ctx.LineTo(499, 499)
        ctx.LineTo(1, 499)
        ctx.Close()
        ctx.FillStroke()
    }

    if dumpImage {
        f, err := os.Create("draw2d.png")
        if err != nil {
            log.Fatal(err)
        }

        if err := png.Encode(f, img); err != nil {
            f.Close()
            log.Fatal(err)
        }

        if err := f.Close(); err != nil {
            log.Fatal(err)
        }
    }
}

func BenchmarkCairo(b *testing.B) {
    img := cairo.NewSurface(cairo.FORMAT_ARGB32, 500, 500)

    for n := 0; n < b.N; n++ {

        img.Rectangle(0, 0, 500, 500)
        img.SetSourceRGB(0.3, 0.3, 0.3)
        img.SetLineWidth(4)
        img.FillPreserve()
        img.SetSourceRGB(1.0, 0.0, 0.0)
        img.Stroke()
    }

    if dumpImage {
        img.WriteToPNG("cairo.png")
    }
}

Results:

$ go test -v -bench=. -test.parallel 1
goos: linux
goarch: amd64
pkg: github.com/usedbytes/drawbench
BenchmarkDraw2D-4           1000           2049011 ns/op
BenchmarkCairo-4           30000             50037 ns/op
PASS
ok      github.com/usedbytes/drawbench  4.278s

The README says that draw2d is a pure-go alternative to Cairo, but unfortunately the performance difference is too high for my use-case.

[redstarcoder]

Any idea on what the bottleneck might be? Comparable performance would be a long-term goal.

[llgcode]

Thanks for the benchmark comparison. I need to make more test but, I feel it comes from the fill operation. I didn't work a lot on performance. The package I use for this is https://github.com/golang/freetype/raster

[usedbytes]

Yes, it does seem to be the raster code (*RGBAPainter).Paint

Flat	Flat%	Sum%	Cum	Cum%	Name	Inlined?
2.20s	95.24%	95.24%	2.20s	95.24%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*RGBAPainter).Paint
0.04s	1.73%	96.97%	0.04s	1.73%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*Rasterizer).findCell
0.04s	1.73%	98.70%	2.24s	96.97%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*Rasterizer).Rasterize
0.01s	0.43%	99.13%	0.05s	2.16%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*Rasterizer).saveCell
0.01s	0.43%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*Rasterizer).setCell
0	0.00%	99.57%	2.30s	99.57%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dimg.(*GraphicContext).FillStroke
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dimg.(*FtLineBuilder).LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.Transformer.LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.Flatten
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.03s	1.30%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.DemuxFlattener.LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	2.24s	96.97%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dimg.(*GraphicContext).paint
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.(*Transformer).LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.03s	1.30%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.(*LineStroker).End
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.03s	1.30%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.(*DemuxFlattener).LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.03s	1.30%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.(*DemuxFlattener).End
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/golang/freetype/raster.(*Rasterizer).Add1
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.06s	2.60%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dimg.FtLineBuilder.LineTo
0	0.00%	99.57%	2.30s	99.57%	github.com/usedbytes/drawbench.BenchmarkDraw2D
0	0.00%	99.57%	2.30s	99.57%	testing.(*B).launch
0	0.00%	99.57%	2.30s	99.57%	testing.(*B).runN
0	0.00%	99.57%	0.03s	1.30%	github.com/llgcode/draw2d/draw2dbase.DemuxFlattener.End

Collected using the testing package's built-in profiling:

$ go test -cpuprofile cpu.prof -bench .                                                                                                                                                                            
goos: linux                                                                                                                                                                                                        
goarch: amd64                                                                                                                                                                                                      
pkg: github.com/usedbytes/drawbench                                                                                                                                                                                
BenchmarkDraw2D-4           1000           2092810 ns/op                                                                                                                                                           
BenchmarkCairo-4           30000             44773 ns/op                                                                                                                                                           
PASS                                                                                                                                                                                                               
ok      github.com/usedbytes/drawbench  4.314s

$ go tool pprof -http=:8000 cpu.prof

The Cairo counterparts (cairo_stroke and cairo_fill) take a similar percentage of the time, but are faster in absolute terms. I imagine they're just much more highly optimised.