blit.s gains v7 -- v6's 24-pixel movem chain plus a second chain whose unit is
one `move.l (a0)+,(a2)+`. Measured over 13 span lengths by span.sh, every config
pixel-exact:
cycles = 66.0 per span + 9.143 per COARSE pixel + 9.978 per FINE pixel
fitting all 13 to within 0.2%. v5 and v6 re-measure to FINDINGS 30 exactly, so
the harness has not drifted underneath the new variant.
Rescored against the same scsi window and the same additive model, v7 takes
84/120 frames over budget to 18/120 -- exactly what FINDINGS 39.4 derived, and
that agreement is two cancelling errors: the derivation's 2-register movem tail
is 29% too dear per pixel, and its "nothing per span" for the second chain entry
is 22.3 clocks too cheap. The plain post-incrementing move.l is the right tail
instruction, and it makes the padding quantum 2 pixels, which a run of 4x4
blocks pads to exactly zero.
The DMAC stays dropped on a measurement now rather than an argument: v7 takes
back 37 of the 43 frames the array chain would, with no reserved channel and no
timing neither emulator here can verify. Break-even against all-V1 moves from
L=4 blocks to L=2.
The fine displacement is carried mid-stream rather than in the span record, so
the decoder holds nothing across the copy and keeps all 12 payload registers --
which is the whole reason the coarse unit is 24 pixels.
span.sh is now -seconds_to_run 200 (30 s wall, 36 configs) and takes its
expected snapshot count from the generated metadata instead of a literal 23.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6
FINDINGS 29 priced a literal-span mode at 4*(50 + 4L*9.08) cycles and labelled
the whole section DERIVED. Session 8 step 0 was to measure it before optimising
over the mode set it implies. Two variants in blit.s, one stream per span length
from prep_spans.py, timed by span.lua, driven by span.sh in ~25 s:
v5, handed (x, npix) and left to work the copy out: 97.9/span + 10.459/px
v6, handed an address and a jump displacement: 43.7/span + 9.152/px
29 assumed 50.0/span + 9.080/px
So 29's arithmetic was right about a format nobody had written. The difference
is not tuning: v5 spends ~122 cycles a span computing a destination, dividing
npix into bursts and handling a 0..15 remainder, all of which the encoder knows
at build time. v6's record is {u32 absolute GVRAM address, u16 jump
displacement} into an unrolled chain of 24-pixel copy units -- no loop, no
remainder, no arithmetic -- and it fits 11 span lengths to 0.3%.
Three things that measurement showed and derivation could not:
- The per-pixel cost is a function of REGISTER PRESSURE. FINDINGS 24's 9.08
was a fixed blit with 12 registers free; v5 can spare 8 and pays 10.46; v6
gets 12 back only because the encoder holds the state.
- Short spans die in the remainder path -- a 12-pixel span costs MORE than a
16-pixel one -- and the fix is padding, not avoidance.
- Odd-x alignment is free (259.0 vs 261.8 cycles/span), as a 16-bit bus
implies but nobody had checked.
Re-priced against the unchanged mode maps, sasi: median 74.4% -> 52.0% (29 said
43.0), misses 37 -> 10/120 (29 said 8), 448.0 KB/s. Break-even moved from runs
of 2 blocks to runs of 4. 29.4 survives: a scene cut needs x >= 0.196 of the
frame as spans and the bus allows x <= 0.373, so it fits at 12fps.
All 23 timing configs are also checked pixel-exact, so none of this was timed
against a decoder that quietly skipped work.
FINDINGS 30. Next: lever B, the cost-aware mode decision.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6
First 68000 instructions in this project to draw a pixel. Everything before
this was GVRAM filled from Lua, which costs zero 68000 cycles, so the blit
figure the whole CPU budget rests on had never been validated.
Four variants of a full-frame 256x192 paint, timed in MAME and each also
hand-derived from the MC68000 timing tables beforehand; the two agree to
0.006-0.43%, which is what makes the result trustworthy after this project's
history of false-good measurements.
V1 movem.l blit from a word-expanded RAM frame 446,286 cyc 53.6%
V2 naive move.b/move.w per pixel 1,284,174 cyc 154.1%
V3 write-only floor, no source read 225,789 cyc 27.1%
V4 same writes in 4x4 block order 637,971 cyc 76.6%
Scope: MAME's gvram_w/gvram_r carry no timing at all, so these are instruction
cycles against zero-wait-state memory -- a floor, not a hardware prediction.
V1's output snapshots pixel-exact through verify_frame256.py, closing
FINDINGS 23.5. The V1/V3 gap shows reading the source frame is exactly half
the cost, which makes the architecture question live: decode-direct-to-GVRAM
needs no RAM reference frame and scales with the non-SKIP block fraction,
crossing compose-then-blit at 70% of blocks changed. That fraction is now the
top priority and is already a by-product of vq_hybrid.py's mode decision.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6
prosolis