aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2016 Google Inc.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This file is part of FFmpeg.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* FFmpeg is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
|
|
|
|
* modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
|
|
|
|
* License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
|
|
|
|
* version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* FFmpeg is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
|
|
|
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
|
|
|
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
|
|
|
|
* Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
|
|
|
|
* License along with FFmpeg; if not, write to the Free Software
|
|
|
|
* Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "libavutil/aarch64/asm.S"
|
|
|
|
#include "neon.S"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The main loop filter macro is templated and can produce filters for
|
|
|
|
// vectors of 8 or 16 bytes. The register mapping throughout the filter
|
|
|
|
// is close to identical to the arm version (please try to maintain this,
|
|
|
|
// if either is changed!). When the arm version uses e.g. d20 for the
|
|
|
|
// input variable p3, the aarch64 version uses v20.8b or v20.16b, depending
|
|
|
|
// on vector length.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The number of elements in the vector is passed in via the macro parameter
|
|
|
|
// \sz, which is either .8b or .16b. For simple instructions that doesn't
|
|
|
|
// lengthen or narrow things, this can easily be templated like this:
|
|
|
|
// uabd v4\sz, v20\sz, v21\sz
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// For instructions that lengthen or narrow content, the arm version would
|
|
|
|
// have used q registers. For these instructions, we have macros that expand
|
|
|
|
// into either a single e.g. uaddl instruction, or into a uaddl + uaddl2
|
|
|
|
// pair, depending on the \sz parameter. Wherever the arm version would have
|
|
|
|
// used a q register, these macros instead take two v registers, i.e. q3
|
|
|
|
// is mapped to v6+v7. For the case with 8 byte input vectors, such a
|
|
|
|
// lengthening operation is only stored in v6.8h (what was in q3 in the arm
|
|
|
|
// case), while the 16 byte input vectors will use v6.8h + v7.8h.
|
|
|
|
// Such a macro invocation would look like this:
|
|
|
|
// uaddl_sz v8.8h, v9.8h, v17, v18, \sz
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// That is, in the 8 byte input vector case, the second register in these
|
|
|
|
// register pairs will be unused.
|
|
|
|
// Unfortunately, this makes the code quite hard to read. For readability,
|
|
|
|
// see the arm version instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro add_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, in4, sz
|
|
|
|
add \dst1, \in1, \in3
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
add \dst2, \in2, \in4
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro sub_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, in4, sz
|
|
|
|
sub \dst1, \in1, \in3
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
sub \dst2, \in2, \in4
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro uaddw_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, sz
|
|
|
|
uaddw \dst1, \in1, \in3\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
uaddw2 \dst2, \in2, \in3\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro usubw_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, sz
|
|
|
|
usubw \dst1, \in1, \in3\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
usubw2 \dst2, \in2, \in3\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro usubl_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, sz
|
|
|
|
usubl \dst1, \in1\().8b, \in2\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
usubl2 \dst2, \in1\().16b, \in2\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro sqxtn_sz dst, in1, in2, sz
|
|
|
|
sqxtn \dst\().8b, \in1
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
sqxtn2 \dst\().16b, \in2
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro sqxtun_sz dst, in1, in2, sz
|
|
|
|
sqxtun \dst\().8b, \in1
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
sqxtun2 \dst\().16b, \in2
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro mul_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, in4, sz
|
|
|
|
mul \dst1, \in1, \in3
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
mul \dst2, \in2, \in4
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro saddw_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, sz
|
|
|
|
saddw \dst1, \in1, \in3\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
saddw2 \dst2, \in2, \in3\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro ssubw_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, in3, sz
|
|
|
|
ssubw \dst1, \in1, \in3\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
ssubw2 \dst2, \in2, \in3\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro uxtl_sz dst1, dst2, in, sz
|
|
|
|
uxtl \dst1, \in\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
uxtl2 \dst2, \in\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro uaddl_sz dst1, dst2, in1, in2, sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl \dst1, \in1\().8b, \in2\().8b
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
uaddl2 \dst2, \in1\().16b, \in2\().16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro rshrn_sz dst, in1, in2, shift, sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn \dst\().8b, \in1, \shift
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
rshrn2 \dst\().16b, \in2, \shift
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro ushll_sz dst1, dst2, in, shift, sz
|
|
|
|
ushll \dst1, \in\().8b, \shift
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
ushll2 \dst2, \in\().16b, \shift
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The input to and output from this macro is in the registers v16-v31,
|
|
|
|
// and v0-v7 are used as scratch registers.
|
|
|
|
// p7 = v16 .. p3 = v20, p0 = v23, q0 = v24, q3 = v27, q7 = v31
|
|
|
|
// Depending on the width of the loop filter, we either use v16-v19
|
|
|
|
// and v28-v31 as temp registers, or v8-v15.
|
|
|
|
// When comparing to the arm version, tmpq1 == tmp1 + tmp2,
|
|
|
|
// tmpq2 == tmp3 + tmp4, etc.
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter wd, sz, mix, tmp1, tmp2, tmp3, tmp4, tmp5, tmp6, tmp7, tmp8
|
|
|
|
.if \mix == 0
|
|
|
|
dup v0\sz, w2 // E
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
dup v2\sz, w3 // I
|
|
|
|
dup v3\sz, w4 // H
|
|
|
|
.else
|
|
|
|
dup v0.8h, w2 // E
|
|
|
|
dup v2.8h, w3 // I
|
|
|
|
dup v3.8h, w4 // H
|
|
|
|
rev16 v1.16b, v0.16b // E
|
|
|
|
rev16 v4.16b, v2.16b // I
|
|
|
|
rev16 v5.16b, v3.16b // H
|
|
|
|
uzp1 v0.16b, v0.16b, v1.16b
|
|
|
|
uzp1 v2.16b, v2.16b, v4.16b
|
|
|
|
uzp1 v3.16b, v3.16b, v5.16b
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uabd v4\sz, v20\sz, v21\sz // abs(p3 - p2)
|
|
|
|
uabd v5\sz, v21\sz, v22\sz // abs(p2 - p1)
|
|
|
|
uabd v6\sz, v22\sz, v23\sz // abs(p1 - p0)
|
|
|
|
uabd v7\sz, v24\sz, v25\sz // abs(q0 - q1)
|
|
|
|
uabd \tmp1\sz, v25\sz, v26\sz // abs(q1 - q2)
|
|
|
|
uabd \tmp2\sz, v26\sz, v27\sz // abs(q2 - q3)
|
|
|
|
umax v4\sz, v4\sz, v5\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v5\sz, v6\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
umax \tmp1\sz, \tmp1\sz, \tmp2\sz
|
|
|
|
uabd v6\sz, v23\sz, v24\sz // abs(p0 - q0)
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
umax v4\sz, v4\sz, v5\sz
|
|
|
|
uqadd v6\sz, v6\sz, v6\sz // abs(p0 - q0) * 2
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
uabd v5\sz, v22\sz, v25\sz // abs(p1 - q1)
|
|
|
|
umax v4\sz, v4\sz, \tmp1\sz // max(abs(p3 - p2), ..., abs(q2 - q3))
|
|
|
|
ushr v5\sz, v5\sz, #1
|
|
|
|
cmhs v4\sz, v2\sz, v4\sz // max(abs()) <= I
|
|
|
|
uqadd v6\sz, v6\sz, v5\sz // abs(p0 - q0) * 2 + abs(p1 - q1) >> 1
|
|
|
|
cmhs v5\sz, v0\sz, v6\sz
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
and v4\sz, v4\sz, v5\sz // fm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If no pixels need filtering, just exit as soon as possible
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
mov x5, v4.d[0]
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
mov x6, v4.d[1]
|
|
|
|
adds x5, x5, x6
|
|
|
|
b.eq 9f
|
|
|
|
.else
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
cbz x5, 9f
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.if \wd >= 8
|
|
|
|
movi v0\sz, #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uabd v6\sz, v20\sz, v23\sz // abs(p3 - p0)
|
|
|
|
uabd v2\sz, v21\sz, v23\sz // abs(p2 - p0)
|
|
|
|
uabd v1\sz, v22\sz, v23\sz // abs(p1 - p0)
|
|
|
|
uabd \tmp1\sz, v25\sz, v24\sz // abs(q1 - q0)
|
|
|
|
uabd \tmp2\sz, v26\sz, v24\sz // abs(q2 - q0)
|
|
|
|
uabd \tmp3\sz, v27\sz, v24\sz // abs(q3 - q0)
|
|
|
|
umax v6\sz, v6\sz, v2\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v1\sz, v1\sz, \tmp1\sz
|
|
|
|
umax \tmp2\sz, \tmp2\sz, \tmp3\sz
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
uabd v7\sz, v16\sz, v23\sz // abs(p7 - p0)
|
|
|
|
umax v6\sz, v6\sz, v1\sz
|
|
|
|
uabd v2\sz, v17\sz, v23\sz // abs(p6 - p0)
|
|
|
|
umax v6\sz, v6\sz, \tmp2\sz
|
|
|
|
uabd v1\sz, v18\sz, v23\sz // abs(p5 - p0)
|
|
|
|
cmhs v6\sz, v0\sz, v6\sz // flat8in
|
|
|
|
uabd v8\sz, v19\sz, v23\sz // abs(p4 - p0)
|
|
|
|
and v6\sz, v6\sz, v4\sz // flat8in && fm
|
|
|
|
uabd v9\sz, v28\sz, v24\sz // abs(q4 - q0)
|
|
|
|
bic v4\sz, v4\sz, v6\sz // fm && !flat8in
|
|
|
|
uabd v10\sz, v29\sz, v24\sz // abs(q5 - q0)
|
|
|
|
uabd v11\sz, v30\sz, v24\sz // abs(q6 - q0)
|
|
|
|
uabd v12\sz, v31\sz, v24\sz // abs(q7 - q0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
umax v7\sz, v7\sz, v2\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v1\sz, v1\sz, v8\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v9\sz, v9\sz, v10\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v11\sz, v11\sz, v12\sz
|
|
|
|
// The rest of the calculation of flat8out is interleaved below
|
|
|
|
.else
|
|
|
|
// The rest of the calculation of flat8in is interleaved below
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Calculate the normal inner loop filter for 2 or 4 pixels
|
|
|
|
uabd v5\sz, v22\sz, v23\sz // abs(p1 - p0)
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
umax v7\sz, v7\sz, v1\sz
|
|
|
|
umax v9\sz, v9\sz, v11\sz
|
|
|
|
.elseif \wd == 8
|
|
|
|
umax v6\sz, v6\sz, v1\sz
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
uabd v1\sz, v25\sz, v24\sz // abs(q1 - q0)
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
umax v7\sz, v7\sz, v9\sz
|
|
|
|
.elseif \wd == 8
|
|
|
|
umax v6\sz, v6\sz, \tmp2\sz
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
usubl_sz \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, v22, v25, \sz // p1 - q1
|
|
|
|
umax v5\sz, v5\sz, v1\sz // max(abs(p1 - p0), abs(q1 - q0))
|
|
|
|
.if \mix != 0
|
|
|
|
mov v1.d[0], x11
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
usubl_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, v24, v23, \sz // q0 - p0
|
|
|
|
movi \tmp5\().8h, #3
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 8
|
|
|
|
cmhs v6\sz, v0\sz, v6\sz // flat8in
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.if \mix != 0
|
|
|
|
sxtl v1.8h, v1.8b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
cmhs v5\sz, v3\sz, v5\sz // !hev
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.if \wd == 8
|
|
|
|
// If a 4/8 or 8/4 mix is used, clear the relevant half of v6
|
|
|
|
.if \mix != 0
|
|
|
|
and v6\sz, v6\sz, v1.16b
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
and v6\sz, v6\sz, v4\sz // flat8in && fm
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
sqxtn_sz \tmp1, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \sz // av_clip_int8(p1 - q1)
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
cmhs v7\sz, v0\sz, v7\sz // flat8out
|
|
|
|
.elseif \wd == 8
|
|
|
|
bic v4\sz, v4\sz, v6\sz // fm && !flat8in
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
and v5\sz, v5\sz, v4\sz // !hev && fm && !flat8in
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
and v7\sz, v7\sz, v6\sz // flat8out && flat8in && fm
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mul_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp5\().8h, \tmp5\().8h, \sz // 3 * (q0 - p0)
|
|
|
|
bic \tmp1\sz, \tmp1\sz, v5\sz // if (!hev) av_clip_int8 = 0
|
|
|
|
movi v2\sz, #4
|
|
|
|
saddw_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp1, \sz // 3 * (q0 - p0) [+ av_clip_int8(p1 - q1)]
|
|
|
|
movi v3\sz, #3
|
|
|
|
sqxtn_sz \tmp1, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \sz // f
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
bic v6\sz, v6\sz, v7\sz // fm && flat8in && !flat8out
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sqadd \tmp3\sz, \tmp1\sz, v2\sz // FFMIN(f + 4, 127)
|
|
|
|
sqadd \tmp4\sz, \tmp1\sz, v3\sz // FFMIN(f + 3, 127)
|
|
|
|
uxtl_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v23, \sz // p0
|
|
|
|
sshr \tmp3\sz, \tmp3\sz, #3 // f1
|
|
|
|
sshr \tmp4\sz, \tmp4\sz, #3 // f2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uxtl_sz v2.8h, v3.8h, v24, \sz // q0
|
|
|
|
saddw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp4, \sz // p0 + f2
|
|
|
|
ssubw_sz v2.8h, v3.8h, v2.8h, v3.8h, \tmp3, \sz // q0 - f1
|
|
|
|
sqxtun_sz v0, v0.8h, v1.8h, \sz // out p0
|
|
|
|
sqxtun_sz v1, v2.8h, v3.8h, \sz // out q0
|
|
|
|
srshr \tmp3\sz, \tmp3\sz, #1 // f = (f1 + 1) >> 1
|
|
|
|
bit v23\sz, v0\sz, v4\sz // if (fm && !flat8in)
|
|
|
|
bit v24\sz, v1\sz, v4\sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uxtl_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v22, \sz // p1
|
|
|
|
uxtl_sz v2.8h, v3.8h, v25, \sz // q1
|
|
|
|
.if \wd >= 8
|
|
|
|
mov x5, v6.d[0]
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
mov x6, v6.d[1]
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
saddw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp3, \sz // p1 + f
|
|
|
|
ssubw_sz v2.8h, v3.8h, v2.8h, v3.8h, \tmp3, \sz // q1 - f
|
|
|
|
sqxtun_sz v0, v0.8h, v1.8h, \sz // out p1
|
|
|
|
sqxtun_sz v2, v2.8h, v3.8h, \sz // out q1
|
|
|
|
.if \wd >= 8
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
adds x5, x5, x6
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
bit v22\sz, v0\sz, v5\sz // if (!hev && fm && !flat8in)
|
|
|
|
bit v25\sz, v2\sz, v5\sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If no pixels need flat8in, jump to flat8out
|
|
|
|
// (or to a writeout of the inner 4 pixels, for wd=8)
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.if \wd >= 8
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
b.eq 6f
|
|
|
|
.else
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
cbz x5, 6f
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// flat8in
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, v20, v21, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, v22, v25, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp5\().8h, \tmp6\().8h, v20, v22, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, v23, v26, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v23, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v24, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp5\().8h, \tmp6\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \tmp5\().8h, \tmp6\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v2, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out p2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, v20, v23, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, v24, v27, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v3, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out p1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp5\().8h, \tmp6\().8h, v21, v24, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, v25, v27, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v4, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out p0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \tmp5\().8h, \tmp6\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, v22, v25, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, v26, v27, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v5, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out q0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp7\().8h, \tmp8\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \tmp1\().8h, \tmp2\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz \tmp5, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out q1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, \tmp3\().8h, \tmp4\().8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
// The output here is written back into the input registers. This doesn't
|
|
|
|
// matter for the flat8part below, since we only update those pixels
|
|
|
|
// which won't be touched below.
|
|
|
|
bit v21\sz, v2\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
bit v22\sz, v3\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
bit v23\sz, v4\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz \tmp6, v0.8h, v1.8h, #3, \sz // out q2
|
|
|
|
bit v24\sz, v5\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
bit v25\sz, \tmp5\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
bit v26\sz, \tmp6\sz, v6\sz
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.if \wd == 16
|
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
orr v2\sz, v6\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
mov x5, v2.d[0]
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
mov x6, v2.d[1]
|
|
|
|
adds x5, x5, x6
|
|
|
|
b.ne 1f
|
|
|
|
.else
|
|
|
|
cbnz x5, 1f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
// If no pixels needed flat8in nor flat8out, jump to a
|
|
|
|
// writeout of the inner 4 pixels
|
|
|
|
ret x14
|
|
|
|
1:
|
|
|
|
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
mov x5, v7.d[0]
|
|
|
|
.ifc \sz, .16b
|
|
|
|
mov x6, v7.d[1]
|
|
|
|
adds x5, x5, x6
|
|
|
|
b.ne 1f
|
|
|
|
.else
|
|
|
|
cbnz x5, 1f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
// If no pixels need flat8out, jump to a writeout of the inner 6 pixels
|
|
|
|
ret x15
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1:
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
// flat8out
|
|
|
|
// This writes all outputs into v2-v17 (skipping v6 and v16).
|
|
|
|
// If this part is skipped, the output is read from v21-v26 (which is the input
|
|
|
|
// to this section).
|
|
|
|
ushll_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v16, #3, \sz // 8 * v16
|
|
|
|
usubw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v16, \sz // 7 * v16
|
|
|
|
uaddw_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v17, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v8.8h, v9.8h, v17, v18, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v19, v20, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v8.8h, v9.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v8.8h, v9.8h, v16, v17, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v21, v22, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v18, v25, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v23, v24, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, v8.8h, v9.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v16, v18, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v19, v26, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v2, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v8.8h, v9.8h, v16, v19, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v20, v27, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v2\sz, v17\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v3, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v16, v20, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v21, v28, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, v8.8h, v9.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v3\sz, v18\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v4, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v8.8h, v9.8h, v16, v21, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v22, v29, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v4\sz, v19\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v5, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v16, v22, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v23, v30, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, v8.8h, v9.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v5\sz, v20\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v6, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v16, v23, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v24, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v6\sz, v21\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v8, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v10.8h, v11.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v17, v24, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v25, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v8\sz, v22\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v9, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v10.8h, v11.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v26, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v9\sz, v23\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v10, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v18, v25, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v18.8h, v19.8h, v19, v26, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v27, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v10\sz, v24\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v11, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v12.8h, v13.8h, v20, v27, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, v18.8h, v19.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v18.8h, v19.8h, v28, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v11\sz, v25\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v18.8h, v19.8h, v18.8h, v19.8h, v12.8h, v13.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v12, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v14.8h, v15.8h, v21, v28, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v20.8h, v21.8h, v29, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v12\sz, v26\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v13, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v18.8h, v19.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v20.8h, v21.8h, v20.8h, v21.8h, v14.8h, v15.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v18.8h, v19.8h, v22, v29, \sz
|
|
|
|
uaddl_sz v22.8h, v23.8h, v30, v31, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v13\sz, v27\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v14, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v20.8h, v21.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
sub_sz v22.8h, v23.8h, v22.8h, v23.8h, v18.8h, v19.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v14\sz, v28\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v15, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
add_sz v0.8h, v1.8h, v0.8h, v1.8h, v22.8h, v23.8h, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v15\sz, v29\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
rshrn_sz v17, v0.8h, v1.8h, #4, \sz
|
|
|
|
bif v17\sz, v30\sz, v7\sz
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// For wd <= 8, we use v16-v19 and v28-v31 for temp registers,
|
|
|
|
// while we need those for inputs/outputs in wd=16 and use v8-v15
|
|
|
|
// for temp registers there instead.
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_4
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 4, .8b, 0, v16, v17, v18, v19, v28, v29, v30, v31
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_4_16b_mix_44
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 4, .16b, 44, v16, v17, v18, v19, v28, v29, v30, v31
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_8
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 8, .8b, 0, v16, v17, v18, v19, v28, v29, v30, v31
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
ret x13
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_8_16b_mix
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 8, .16b, 88, v16, v17, v18, v19, v28, v29, v30, v31
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
ret x13
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_16
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 16, .8b, 0, v8, v9, v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function vp9_loop_filter_16_16b
|
|
|
|
loop_filter 16, .16b, 0, v8, v9, v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15
|
|
|
|
ret
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_4
|
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_4
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_4_16b_mix mix
|
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_4_16b_mix_\mix
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_8
|
|
|
|
// calculate alternative 'return' targets
|
|
|
|
adr x13, 6f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_8
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_8_16b_mix mix
|
|
|
|
// calculate alternative 'return' targets
|
|
|
|
adr x13, 6f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
.if \mix == 48
|
|
|
|
mov x11, #0xffffffff00000000
|
|
|
|
.elseif \mix == 84
|
|
|
|
mov x11, #0x00000000ffffffff
|
|
|
|
.else
|
|
|
|
mov x11, #0xffffffffffffffff
|
|
|
|
.endif
|
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_8_16b_mix
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_16
|
|
|
|
// calculate alternative 'return' targets
|
|
|
|
adr x14, 7f
|
|
|
|
adr x15, 8f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_16
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro loop_filter_16_16b
|
|
|
|
// calculate alternative 'return' targets
|
|
|
|
adr x14, 7f
|
|
|
|
adr x15, 8f
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
bl vp9_loop_filter_16_16b
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The public functions in this file have got the following signature:
|
|
|
|
// void loop_filter(uint8_t *dst, ptrdiff_t stride, int mb_lim, int lim, int hev_thr);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_44_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.16b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.16b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.16b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.16b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_4_16b_mix 44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
// Move x0/x9 forward by 2 pixels; we don't need to rewrite the
|
|
|
|
// outermost 2 pixels since they aren't changed.
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We only will write the mid 4 pixels back; after the loop filter,
|
|
|
|
// these are in v22, v23, v24, v25, ordered as rows (8x4 pixels).
|
|
|
|
// We need to transpose them to columns, done with a 4x8 transpose
|
|
|
|
// (which in practice is two 4x4 transposes of the two 4x4 halves
|
|
|
|
// of the 8x4 pixels; into 4x8 pixels).
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x8B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_44_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_4_16b_mix 44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x16B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro mix_v_16 mix
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_\mix\()_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.16b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.16b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.16b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.16b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_8_16b_mix \mix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mix_v_16 48
|
|
|
|
mix_v_16 84
|
|
|
|
mix_v_16 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Even though only 6 pixels per row have been changed, we write the
|
|
|
|
// full 8 pixel registers.
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
// If we didn't need to do the flat8in part, we use the same writeback
|
|
|
|
// as in loop_filter_h_4_8.
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x8B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.macro mix_h_16 mix
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_\mix\()_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_8_16b_mix \mix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
6:
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x16B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
.endm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mix_h_16 48
|
|
|
|
mix_h_16 84
|
|
|
|
mix_h_16 88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
stp d8, d9, [sp, #-0x40]!
|
|
|
|
stp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
stp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
stp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v16.8b}, [x9], x1 // p7
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v17.8b}, [x9], x1 // p6
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v18.8b}, [x9], x1 // p5
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v19.8b}, [x9], x1 // p4
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v28.8b}, [x0], x1 // q4
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v29.8b}, [x0], x1 // q5
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v30.8b}, [x0], x1 // q6
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v31.8b}, [x0], x1 // q7
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// If we did the flat8out part, we get the output in
|
|
|
|
// v2-v17 (skipping v7 and v16). x9 points to x0 - 7 * stride,
|
|
|
|
// store v2-v9 there, and v10-v17 into x0.
|
|
|
|
st1 {v2.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v10.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v3.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v11.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v4.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v12.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v5.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v13.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v6.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v14.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v8.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v15.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v9.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v17.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
8:
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
// If we didn't do the flat8out part, the output is left in the
|
|
|
|
// input registers.
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
7:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
stp d8, d9, [sp, #-0x40]!
|
|
|
|
stp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
stp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
stp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v16.16b}, [x9], x1 // p7
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1 // q0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v17.16b}, [x9], x1 // p6
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1 // q1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v18.16b}, [x9], x1 // p5
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.16b}, [x0], x1 // q2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v19.16b}, [x9], x1 // p4
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.16b}, [x0], x1 // q3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.16b}, [x9], x1 // p3
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v28.16b}, [x0], x1 // q4
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.16b}, [x9], x1 // p2
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v29.16b}, [x0], x1 // q5
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1 // p1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v30.16b}, [x0], x1 // q6
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1 // p0
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v31.16b}, [x0], x1 // q7
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_16_16b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v2.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v10.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v3.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v11.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v4.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v12.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v5.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v13.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v6.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v14.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v8.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v15.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v9.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v17.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
8:
|
|
|
|
add x9, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
7:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, x1, lsl #1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.16b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.16b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
stp d8, d9, [sp, #-0x40]!
|
|
|
|
stp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
stp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
stp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #8
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v16.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v17.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v18.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v19.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v28.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v29.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v30.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v31.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The 16x8 pixels read above is in two 8x8 blocks; the left
|
|
|
|
// half in v16-v23, and the right half in v24-v31. Do two 8x8 transposes
|
|
|
|
// of this, to get one column per register.
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v16, v17, v18, v19, v20, v21, v22, v23, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29, v30, v31, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v16, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v8, v9, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15, v17, v31, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v16.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v10.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v2.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v11.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v3.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v12.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v4.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v13.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v5.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v14.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v6.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v15.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v8.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v17.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v9.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v31.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
8:
|
|
|
|
// The same writeback as in loop_filter_h_8_8
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x8B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
7:
|
|
|
|
// The same writeback as in loop_filter_h_4_8
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #2
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x8B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
endfunc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function ff_vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon, export=1
|
|
|
|
mov x10, x30
|
|
|
|
stp d8, d9, [sp, #-0x40]!
|
|
|
|
stp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
stp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
stp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #8
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v16.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v17.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v18.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v19.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v28.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v29.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v30.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v31.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v16.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v24.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v17.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v25.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v18.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v26.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v19.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v27.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v20.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v28.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v21.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v29.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v22.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v30.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v23.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
ld1 {v31.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
sub x0, x0, x1, lsl #4
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x9, x1, lsl #4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v16, v17, v18, v19, v20, v21, v22, v23, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29, v30, v31, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loop_filter_16_16b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v16, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v8, v9, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v10, v11, v12, v13, v14, v15, v17, v31, v0, v1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v16.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v10.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v2.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v11.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v3.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v12.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v4.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v13.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v5.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v14.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v6.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v15.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v8.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v17.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v9.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v31.8b}, [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v16.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v10.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v2.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v11.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v3.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v12.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v4.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v13.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v5.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v14.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v6.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v15.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v8.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v17.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v9.d}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v31.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
9:
|
|
|
|
ldp d10, d11, [sp, #0x10]
|
|
|
|
ldp d12, d13, [sp, #0x20]
|
|
|
|
ldp d14, d15, [sp, #0x30]
|
|
|
|
ldp d8, d9, [sp], #0x40
|
|
|
|
ret x10
|
aarch64: vp9: Implement NEON loop filters
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; thanks to the larger
amount of registers available, we can do the loop filters with
16 pixels at a time. The implementation is fully templated, with
a single macro which can generate versions for both 8 and
16 pixels wide, for both 4, 8 and 16 pixels loop filters
(and the 4/8 mixed versions as well).
For the 8 pixel wide versions, it is pretty close in speed (the
v_4_8 and v_8_8 filters are the best examples of this; the h_4_8
and h_8_8 filters seem to get some gain in the load/transpose/store
part). For the 16 pixels wide ones, we get a speedup of around
1.2-1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 144.0 127.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 207.0 182.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 415.0 328.7
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 672.0 558.6
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 302.0 203.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 365.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 376.0 305.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 193.2 128.2
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 246.7 218.4
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 248.0 218.5
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 302.0 218.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 89.0 88.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 141.0 137.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 295.0 272.7
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 546.0 453.7
The speedup vs C code in checkasm tests is around 2-7x, which is
pretty much the same as for the 32 bit version. Even if these functions
are faster than their 32 bit equivalent, the C version that we compare
to also became around 1.3-1.7x faster than the C version in 32 bit.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-5x.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 256.6 93.4
loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 307.3 139.1
loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 340.1 254.1
loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 827.0 407.9
loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 524.5 155.4
loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 644.5 173.3
loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 630.5 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 697.3 222.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 598.5 100.6
loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 651.5 127.0
loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 591.5 167.1
loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 855.1 166.7
loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 271.7 65.3
loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 312.5 106.9
loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 473.3 206.5
loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 976.1 327.8
The speed-up compared to the C functions is 2.5 to 6 and the cortex-a57
is again 30-50% faster than the cortex-a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
9d2afd1eb8c5cc0633062430e66326dbf98c99e0 and
31756abe29eb039a11c59a42cb12e0cc2aef3b97.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
8 years ago
|
|
|
8:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #4
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
transpose_8x16B v20, v21, v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v20.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v21.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v26.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.8b}, [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v27.d}[1], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
7:
|
|
|
|
sub x9, x0, #2
|
|
|
|
add x0, x9, x1, lsl #3
|
|
|
|
transpose_4x16B v22, v23, v24, v25, v26, v27, v28, v29
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[0], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[2], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v22.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v23.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v24.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[1], [x9], x1
|
|
|
|
st1 {v25.s}[3], [x0], x1
|
|
|
|
b 9b
|
|
|
|
endfunc
|