[Insight-developers] Trying to avoid an extra copy reading files using itkImageSeriesReader

[Roger Bramon Feixas]

Hi,

I've been following it on gerrit and I've successfully applied Patch 4 to
ITK 3.20. It works good to me and the performance has improved a lot.

Many thanks for your attention and work.

Roger

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com>wrote:

> Hi Brad,
>
> Thanks for the new patch:
> http://review.source.kitware.com/#change,1248
>
> Unfortunately, it still fails the test:
>
> itkGDCMSeriesStreamReadImageWrite1
>
> In an Ubuntu 64bits build.
>
>
> *** glibc detected ***
> /home/ibanez/bin/ITK/Release/bin/ITK-IO-GDCMTestDriver: free():
> invalid pointer: 0x0000000002885e70 ***
>
>
> ------
>
>
> I have made some style changes to patch #2
> mainly to avoid the Java-like notation of
>
>
> reader->GetOutput()->FunctionA()->FunctionB()
>
> that is hard to debug and prone to errors.
>
> and pushed that as a patch #3,
>
>
> We still have to figure out what is the
> reason for the failure of:
>
>
> itkGDCMSeriesStreamReadImageWrite1
>
>
>
>       Luis
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Bradley Lowekamp
> <blowekamp at mail.nih.gov> wrote:
> > Luis,
> > I made a new patch, which should be much more flexible.
> > I also discovered that the ImageSeriesReader has not been supporting
> > VectorImages. This will be needed by SimpleITK too. For this patch, I
> don't
> > think I am calculating the size of the buffer correctly, nor the off set
> for
> > all types of images. Do you know what is the correct thing to do here, to
> > support both VectorImages and Images of vector/rgb?
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
> > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Lowekamp, Bradley (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C] wrote:
> >
> > Hello Roger,
> > Your benchmark program had a few more dependencies, the just ITK so I
> wrote
> > my own and attached it. I used a series of tiff I have, so I hope it
> would
> > be comparable. I have also arrived at a similar conclusion that the copy
> > loop is expensive and should be avoided. However, my benchmark does
> indicate
> > that the progress reporting is taking 50% of the additional execution
> time,
> > which is rather different then your experiment.
> >
> > Testing series reader with 349 files.
> > Image Size: [2048, 1536, 349]
> > # current ITK
> > Executed 10 times with mean 24.4403s
> > # progress commented out
> > Executed  10 times with mean 20.7206s
> > # copy loop commented out
> > Executed with 10 times with mean 16.5306s
> > # gerrit patch version
> > Executed 10 times with mean 16.9262s
> > <itkImageSeriesReaderPerformance.cxx><ATT00001..htm>
> >
> > ========================================================
> >
> > Bradley Lowekamp
> >
> > Lockheed Martin Contractor for
> >
> > Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
> >
> > National Library of Medicine
> >
> > blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20110405/e8590270/attachment.htm>