Starting with ''preview release'' `v0.pre.04`, branch and version tags
will be handled in accordance to the **Git-flow** naming scheme.
Notably this implies that from now on the version in-tree will indicate
the ''next expected release,'' adorned by a suffix to mark the preview.
To accommodate this transition to Git-flow
- the new branch `integration` will be introduced
- the version number will once (and the last time for this release)
be adjusted ''before'' forking the release branch
- branch `master` will transition to reflect the latest released state
- several existing branches will be discontinued, notably
`gui`, `steam`, `vault`, `release`, `play`
Indeed — this change set is kind of sad.
Because I still admire the design of the GAVL library,
and would love to use it for processing of raw video.
However, up to now, we never got to the point of actually
doing so. For the future, I am not sure if there remains
room to rely on lib-GAVL, since FFmpeg roughly covers
a similar ground (and a lot beyond that). And providing
a plug-in for FFmpeg is unavoidable, practically speaking.
So I still retain the nominal dependency on lib-GAVL
in the Build system (since it is still packaged in Debian).
But it is pointless to rely on this library just for an
external type-def `gavl_time_t`. We owe much to this
inspiration, but it can be expected that we'll wrap
these raw time-values into a dedicated marker type
soon, and we certainly won't be exposing any C-style
interface for time calculations in future, since
we do not want anyone to side-step the Lumiera
time handling framework in favour of working
„just with plain numbers“
NOTE: lib-GAVL hompage has moved to Github:
https://github.com/bplaum/gavl
- remove obsolete configuration settings
- walk through all settings according to the documentation
https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/config.html
- now try to use the new feature to rely on Clang for C++ parsing
- walk through the doxygen-warnings.txt and fix some obvious misspellings
and structural problems in the documentation comments.
With Debian-Trixie, we are now using Doxygen 1.9.8 —
which produces massively better results in various fine points.
However, there are still problems with automatic cross links,
especially from implementation to the corresponding test classes.
With the ability to invoke a Render Node graph,
the development on branch `play` reached some kind of milestone
regarding the »Playback Vertical Slice«.
This is a good opportunity to update the reference platform
and upgrade the preview releases and packaging setup accordingly.
This will include adjustments to compile on recent compilers and
upgrade the build system to support Python-3.
Remove left-overs from the preceding prototypical implementation,
which is now obliterated by the change to a flexibly configured `FeedManifold`
with structured, typed storage for buffers and for parameter data.
The Render Node invocation sequence, as rearranged and reworked for the »Playback Vertical Slice«, now seems reasonably clear and settled.
Adding extensive documentation to describe the conventions and structures worked out thus far;
moreover, start makeover of old documentation in the !TiddlyWiki to remove concepts obviously obsoleted now...
The behaviour seems consistent and the schedule breaks at the expected point.
At first sight, concurrency seems slightly to low; detailed investigation
however shows that this is due to the structure of the load graph,
and in fact the run time comes close to optimal values.
the `BreakingPoint` tool conducts a binary search to find the ''stress factor''
where a given schedule breaks. There are some known deviations related to the
measurement setup, which unfortunately impact the interpretation of the
''stress factor'' scale. Earlier, an attempt was made, to watch those factors
empirically and work a ''form factor'' into the ''effective stress factor''
used to guide this measurement method.
Closer investigation with extended and elastic load patters now revealed
a strong tendency of the Scheduler to scale down the work resources when not
fully loaded. This may be mistaken by the above mentioned adjustments as a sign
of a structural limiation of the possible concurrency.
Thus, as a mitigation, those adjustments are now only performed at the
beginning of the measurement series, and also only when the stress factor
is high (implying that the scheduler is actually overloaded and thus has
no incentive for scaling down).
These observations indicate that the »Breaking Point« search must be taken
with a grain of salt: Especially when the test load does ''not'' contain
a high degree of inter dependencies, it will be ''stretched elastically''
rather than outright broken. And under such circumstances, this measurement
actually gauges the Scheduler's ability to comply to an established
load and computation goal.
- use parameters known to produce a clean linear model
- assert on properties of this linear model
Add extended documentation into the !TiddlyWiki,
with a textual account of the various findings,
also including some of the images and diagrams,
rendered as SVG
Investigate the behaviour over a wider range of job loads,
job count and worker pool sizes. Seemingly the processing
can not fully utilise the available worker pool capacity.
By inspection of trace-dumps, one impeding mechanism could
be identified: the »stickiness« of the contention mitigation.
Whenever a worker encounters repeated contention, it steps up
and adds more and more wait cycles to remove pressure from the
schedule coordination. As such this is fine and prevents further
degradation of performance by repeated atomic synchronisation.
However, this throttling was kept up needlessly after further
successful work-pulls. Since job times of several milliseconds
can be expected on average in media processing, such a long
retention would spread a performance degradation over a duration
of several frames. Thus, the scheme for step-down was changed
to decrease the throttling by a power series rather than just
documenting the level.
- repeated invocations of the same test setup for statistics
- the usual nasty 64-node graph with massive fork out
- limit concurrency to 4 cores
- tabulate data to look for clues regarding a trigger criteria
Hypothesis: The Scheduler slips off schedule when all of the
following three criteria are met:
- more than 55% glitches with Δ > 2ms
- σ > 2ms
- ∅Δ > 4ms
...the idea is to use the sum of node weights per level
to create a schedule, which more closely reflects the distribution
of actual computation time. Hopefully such a schedule can then be
squeezed or stretched by a time factor to find out a ''breaking point'',
at which the Scheduler is no longer able to keep up.
The last round of refactorings yielded significant improvements
- parallelisation now works as expected
- processing progresses closer to the schedule
- run time was reduced
The processing load for this test is tuned in a way to overload the
scheduler massively at the end -- the result must be correct non the less.
There was one notable glitch with an assertion failure from the memory manager.
Hopefully I can reproduce this by pressing and overloading the Scheduler more...
* added benchmark over synchronous execution as point of reference
* verified running times and execution pattern
* Scheduler **behaves as expected** for this example
Some test-runs performed excitingly smooth,
but in one case the processing was was drastically delayed,
due to heavy contention. The relevance of this incident is not clear yet,
since this test run uses a rather atypical load with very short actual work jobs.
Anyway, the dump-logs are documented with this commit.
At various places, concepts and drafts from the early stage of the
Lumiera Project are still reflected in the online documentation pages.
During the last months, development focussed on the Render Engine,
causing a shift in some parts of the design, and obsoleting other
parts altogether (notably we consider to use IO_URING for async IO)
- introduce a new entity: RenderDrive
- it supersedes the CalcPlanCalculation, but is managed by CalcStream
- moreover, the RenderDrive will house a IterTreeExplorer-Pipeline
- define the concerns and relationships more clearly (see Drawing)
- prerequisite to disentangle the Job-planning "mechanics"
- decision: the Monad-style iteration framework will be abandoned
- the job-planning will be recast in terms of the iter-tree-explorer
- job-planning and frame dispatch will be disentangled
- the Scheduler will deliberately offer a high-level interface
- on this high-level, Scheduler will support dependency management
- the low-level implementation of the Scheduler will be based on Activity verbs
The drawing code extracts style information from some "virtual"
widgets, which serve as logical placeholder for the actual nested
structure of tracks.
For sake of demonstration, I used rather obvious colours and
also all kinds of margin and padding; a screenshot was added
with annotations to indicate where some specific style settings
are utilised from the drawing code
- pick up all relevant values from CSS
- also control the width of the StaveBracket
- observe the given overall height
Moreover, complete documentation drawing in Inkscape
and add a page to the TiddlyWiki, describing the principles
underlying this design and construction.
Identify the elements of the construction geometry in the "Sketch"
object in the FreeCAD document and paste the corresponding coordinate
values into the SVG drawing prepared for documentation.
The arc segment parameters seemingly are given in radians;
and while FreeCAD uses the common mathematical right-handed orientation,
the orientation in SVG is applied clockwise rather.
...since the construction is determined now (and was worked out in FreeCAD),
the SVG will serve to document the construction; thus the drawing
primitives are rearranged to use the unscaled reference coordinates
to be extracted from the FreeCAD document; all scaling and placement
in the SVG document will be applied through common groups.
My idea was to use the brackets from musical notation as inspiration;
if you know some principles of typography, it is rather straight-forward
to come up with a pleasing design of such a bracket, using a
cascade of golden ratio relationships.
BUT ... all of this is geometry, and translating that into a symbolic
or numerical calculation is excessively complicated. Thus I looked
for ways to use some geometry or CAD software to build such a construction.
The geometry software I tired was woefully inadequate for this task.
Using the Constraint system in FreeCAD, building the construction went
smooth and straight forward, but then I was unable to export that drawing
in a way indicating the construction clearly.
So in the end, I'll have to hand-pick the resulting numerical coordinates
from the FreeCAD XML document and integrate them directly into Cairo
drawing code...
After sleeping some nights over it, rework the wording to make
my reasoning more clear and remove any possibly insulting undertone.
I have seen what I describe here, happening over and over again --
and several times I myself was the one cooking up "simplifications",
which caused lots of pain further down the road.
During the last years, I became more and more doubtful and regretted
that decision. In hindsight, the fundamental conflict was present
already in the original discussion.
My own experience showed me again and again: skipping the hard work
of specification for sake of some kind of fluid prototyping rarely
leads to anything solid. If "time to market" counts, this can be
a viable strategy though...
this is just an "interpretation" of the current architecture diagram,
created for inclusion into the developer report, indicating those components
to be augmented and integrated to get a simple render/playback to work
On my visit to Benny in the Black forest,
we decided to concentrate on a "Playback Vertical Slice"
and to announce that in the development report, using an
architecture diagram...
In 2017, I did a first design draft, followed by a design critique,
which partially obsoleted some ideas regarding command binding.
Mostly, the reason to abandon parts of that initial design was
due to the fact, that to many actual construction details of the
UI framework were not worked out at that time.
Thus I rather focussed on (re)-building a backbone for the timeline display,
in order to support that kind of flexibility aspired within the session model.
Now, when re-visiting the topic of an UI gesture (using simple dragging
of a clip in the timeline as an example for a first draft), I picked up
some of those planned structures, but tend to bind them together in
a slightly different way -- more akin to a state machine and less
in the way of an LR-parser.
This chagneset updates the relevant part within the TiddlyWiki
and the corresponding UML drawing to better reflect my actual thinking.
...in an attempt to clarify why numerous cross links are not generated.
In the end, this attempt was not very successful, yet I could find some breadcrumbs...
- file comments generally seem to have a problem with auto link generation;
only fully qualified names seem to work reliably
- cross links to entities within a namespace do not work,
if the corresponding namespace is not documented in Doxygen
- documentation for entities within anonymous namespaces
must be explicitly enabled. Of course this makes only sense
for detailed documentation (but we do generate detailed
documentation here, including implementation notes)
- and the notorious problem: each file needs a valid @file comment
- the hierarchy of Markdown headings must be consistent within each
documentation section. This entails also to individual documented
entities. Basically, there must be a level-one heading (prefix "#"),
otherwise all headings will just disappear...
- sometimes the doc/devel/doxygen-warnings.txt gives further clues
