They were replaced by TX from libavutil; the tremendous work
to get to this point (both creating TX as well as porting
the users of the components removed in this commit) was
completely performed by Lynne alone.
Removing the subsystems from configure may break some command lines,
because the --disable-fft etc. options are no longer recognized.
Co-authored-by: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee>
Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinhardt@outlook.com>
- ff_pix_abs16_neon
- ff_pix_abs16_xy2_neon
In direct micro benchmarks of these ff functions verses their C implementations,
these functions performed as follows on AWS Graviton 3.
ff_pix_abs16_neon:
pix_abs_0_0_c: 141.1
pix_abs_0_0_neon: 19.6
ff_pix_abs16_xy2_neon:
pix_abs_0_3_c: 269.1
pix_abs_0_3_neon: 39.3
Tested with:
./tests/checkasm/checkasm --test=motion --bench --disable-linux-perf
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Swinney <jswinney@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
checkasm benchmarks on 1.5 GHz Cortex-A72 are as follows. Note that the C
version can still outperform the NEON version in specific cases. The balance
between different code paths is stream-dependent, but in practice the best
case happens about 5% of the time, the worst case happens about 40% of the
time, and the complexity of the remaining cases fall somewhere in between.
Therefore, taking the average of the best and worst case timings is
probably a conservative estimate of the degree by which the NEON code
improves performance.
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter4_bestcase_c: 10.7
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter4_bestcase_neon: 43.5
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter4_worstcase_c: 184.5
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter4_worstcase_neon: 73.7
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter8_bestcase_c: 31.2
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter8_bestcase_neon: 62.2
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter8_worstcase_c: 358.2
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter8_worstcase_neon: 88.2
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter16_bestcase_c: 51.0
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter16_bestcase_neon: 107.7
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter16_worstcase_c: 722.7
vc1dsp.vc1_h_loop_filter16_worstcase_neon: 140.5
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter4_bestcase_c: 9.7
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter4_bestcase_neon: 43.0
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter4_worstcase_c: 178.7
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter4_worstcase_neon: 69.0
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter8_bestcase_c: 30.2
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter8_bestcase_neon: 50.7
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter8_worstcase_c: 353.0
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter8_worstcase_neon: 69.2
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter16_bestcase_c: 60.0
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter16_bestcase_neon: 90.0
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter16_worstcase_c: 714.2
vc1dsp.vc1_v_loop_filter16_worstcase_neon: 97.2
Signed-off-by: Ben Avison <bavison@riscosopen.org>
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
Makes SIMD-optimized 8x8 and 16x16 idcts for 8 and 10 bit depth
available on aarch64.
For a UHD HDR (10 bit) sample video these were consuming the most time
and this optimization reduced overall decode time from 19.4s to 16.4s,
approximately 15% speedup.
Test sample was the first 300 frames of "LG 4K HDR Demo - New York.ts",
running on Apple M1.
Signed-off-by: Josh Dekker <josh@itanimul.li>
153372 UNITS in postfilter_c, 65536 runs, 0 skips
73164 UNITS in postfilter_neon, 65536 runs, 0 skips -> 2.1x speedup
80591 UNITS in deemphasis_c, 131072 runs, 0 skips
43969 UNITS in deemphasis_neon, 131072 runs, 0 skips -> 1.83x speedup
Total decoder speedup: ~15% on a Raspberry Pi 3 (from 28.1x to 33.5x realtime)
Deemphasis SIMD based on the following unrolling:
const float c1 = CELT_EMPH_COEFF, c2 = c1*c1, c3 = c2*c1, c4 = c3*c1;
float state = coeff;
for (int i = 0; i < len; i += 4) {
y[0] = x[0] + c1*state;
y[1] = x[1] + c2*state + c1*x[0];
y[2] = x[2] + c3*state + c1*x[1] + c2*x[0];
y[3] = x[3] + c4*state + c1*x[2] + c2*x[1] + c3*x[0];
state = y[3];
y += 4;
x += 4;
}
Unlike the x86 version, duplication is used instead of pslldq so
the structure and tables are different.
Even if NEON would be disabled, the init functions should be built
as they are called as long as ARCH_AARCH64 is set.
These functions are part of a generic DSP subsytem, not tied directly
to one decoder. (They should be built if the vp7 decoder is enabled,
even if the vp8 decoder is disabled.)
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
(cherry picked from commit b4b27dce95)
Even if NEON would be disabled, the init functions should be built
as they are called as long as ARCH_AARCH64 is set.
These functions are part of a generic DSP subsytem, not tied directly
to one decoder. (They should be built if the vp7 decoder is enabled,
even if the vp8 decoder is disabled.)
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
This is similar to the arm version, but due to the larger registers
on aarch64, we can do 8 pixels at a time for all filter sizes.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_10bpp_neon: 213.2 172.6
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_10bpp_neon: 281.2 244.2
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_10bpp_neon: 657.0 444.5
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_10bpp_neon: 1280.4 877.7
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_10bpp_neon: 397.7 358.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_10bpp_neon: 465.7 429.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_10bpp_neon: 465.7 428.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_10bpp_neon: 533.7 499.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_10bpp_neon: 271.5 244.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_10bpp_neon: 330.0 305.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_10bpp_neon: 329.0 306.0
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_10bpp_neon: 386.0 365.0
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_10bpp_neon: 150.0 115.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_10bpp_neon: 209.0 175.5
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_10bpp_neon: 492.7 345.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_10bpp_neon: 951.0 682.7
This is significantly faster than the ARM version in almost
all cases except for the mix2 functions.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 2-3x.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
Compared to the arm version, on aarch64 we can keep the full 8x8
transform in registers, and for 16x16 and 32x32, we can process
it in slices of 4 pixels instead of 2.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_sub4_add_10_neon: 111.0 109.7
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_sub8_add_10_neon: 914.0 733.5
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_sub16_add_10_neon: 5184.0 3745.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_sub1_add_10_neon: 65.0 65.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_sub4_add_10_neon: 100.0 96.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_sub1_add_10_neon: 111.0 119.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_sub8_add_10_neon: 618.0 494.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_sub1_add_10_neon: 295.1 284.6
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_sub2_add_10_neon: 2303.2 1883.9
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_sub8_add_10_neon: 2984.8 2189.3
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_sub16_add_10_neon: 3890.0 2799.4
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_sub1_add_10_neon: 1044.4 1012.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_sub2_add_10_neon: 13333.7 9695.1
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_sub16_add_10_neon: 18531.3 12459.8
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_sub32_add_10_neon: 24470.7 16160.2
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_sub4_add_10_neon: 83.0 79.7
The larger transforms are significantly faster than the corresponding
ARM versions.
The speedup vs C code is smaller than in 32 bit mode, probably
because the 64 bit intermediates in the C code can be expressed
more efficiently in aarch64.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
This has mostly got the same differences to the 8 bit version as
in the arm version. For the horizontal filters, we do 16 pixels
in parallel as well. For the 8 pixel wide vertical filters, we can
accumulate 4 rows before storing, just as in the 8 bit version.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_avg4_10bpp_neon: 35.7 30.7
vp9_avg8_10bpp_neon: 93.5 84.7
vp9_avg16_10bpp_neon: 324.4 296.6
vp9_avg32_10bpp_neon: 1236.5 1148.2
vp9_avg64_10bpp_neon: 4639.6 4571.1
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4h_10bpp_neon: 130.0 128.0
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4hv_10bpp_neon: 440.0 440.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4v_10bpp_neon: 114.0 105.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8h_10bpp_neon: 327.0 314.0
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8hv_10bpp_neon: 918.7 865.4
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8v_10bpp_neon: 330.0 300.2
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_16h_10bpp_neon: 1187.5 1155.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_16hv_10bpp_neon: 2663.1 2591.0
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_16v_10bpp_neon: 1107.4 1078.3
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64h_10bpp_neon: 17754.6 17454.7
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64hv_10bpp_neon: 33285.2 33001.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64v_10bpp_neon: 16066.9 16048.6
vp9_put4_10bpp_neon: 25.5 21.7
vp9_put8_10bpp_neon: 56.0 52.0
vp9_put16_10bpp_neon/armv8: 183.0 163.1
vp9_put32_10bpp_neon/armv8: 678.6 563.1
vp9_put64_10bpp_neon/armv8: 2679.9 2195.8
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4h_10bpp_neon: 120.0 118.0
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4hv_10bpp_neon: 435.2 435.0
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4v_10bpp_neon: 107.0 98.2
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8h_10bpp_neon: 303.0 290.0
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8hv_10bpp_neon: 893.7 828.7
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8v_10bpp_neon: 305.5 263.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_16h_10bpp_neon: 1089.1 1059.2
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_16hv_10bpp_neon: 2578.8 2452.4
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_16v_10bpp_neon: 1009.5 933.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_10bpp_neon: 16223.4 15918.6
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64hv_10bpp_neon: 32153.0 31016.2
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_10bpp_neon: 14516.5 13748.1
These are generally about as fast as the corresponding ARM
routines on the same CPU (at least on the A53), in most cases
marginally faster.
The speedup vs C code is around 4-9x.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
Prep work for the next commit, which will add a new FFT algorithm
which makes the iMDCT over 3x faster than it is currently (standalone,
the FFT is with some framesizes over 10x faster).
The new FFT algorithm uses the already thouroughly SIMD'd power of two
FFT which already has SIMD for AArch64, so users of that platform will
still see an improvement.
The previous FFT+SIMD was barely 2.5x faster than the C versions on these
platforms.
Signed-off-by: Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnuker@gmail.com>
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
9d2afd1eb8 and
31756abe29.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
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 16x16 and 32x32
transforms in slices 8 pixels wide instead of 4. This gives
a speedup of around 1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
The fact that aarch64 doesn't have the same d/q register
aliasing makes some of the macros quite a bit simpler as well.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_add_neon: 90.0 87.7
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_add_neon: 400.0 354.7
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_add_neon: 2526.5 1827.2
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_add_neon: 74.0 72.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_add_neon: 271.0 256.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_add_neon: 1960.7 1372.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 11988.9 8088.3
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_add_neon: 63.0 57.7
The speedup vs C code (2-4x) is smaller than in the 32 bit case,
mostly because the C code ends up significantly faster (around
1.6x faster, with GCC 5.4) when built for aarch64.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_add_neon: 152.2 60.0
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_add_neon: 948.2 288.0
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_add_neon: 4830.4 1380.5
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_add_neon: 153.0 58.6
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_add_neon: 789.2 180.2
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_add_neon: 3639.6 917.1
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 20462.1 4985.0
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_add_neon: 91.0 49.8
The asm is around factor 3-4 faster than C on the cortex-a57 and the asm
is around 30-50% faster on the a57 compared to the a53.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commit
3c9546dfaf.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; it is essentially a 1:1
port with no extra added features, but with some hand tuning
(especially for the plain copy/avg functions). The ARM version
isn't very register starved to begin with, so there's not much
to be gained from having more spare registers here - we only
avoid having to clobber callee-saved registers.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_avg4_neon: 27.2 23.7
vp9_avg8_neon: 56.5 54.7
vp9_avg16_neon: 169.9 167.4
vp9_avg32_neon: 585.8 585.2
vp9_avg64_neon: 2460.3 2294.7
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 132.7 125.2
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 478.8 442.0
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 126.0 93.7
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 241.7 234.2
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 690.9 646.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 245.0 205.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 11273.2 11280.1
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 22980.6 22184.1
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 11549.7 10781.1
vp9_put4_neon: 18.0 17.2
vp9_put8_neon: 40.2 37.7
vp9_put16_neon: 97.4 99.5
vp9_put32_neon/armv8: 346.0 307.4
vp9_put64_neon/armv8: 1319.0 1107.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 126.7 118.2
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 465.7 434.0
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 113.0 86.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 229.7 221.6
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 658.9 621.3
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 215.0 187.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 10636.7 10627.8
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 21076.8 21026.9
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 9635.0 9632.4
These are generally about as fast as the corresponding ARM
routines on the same CPU (at least on the A53), in most cases
marginally faster.
The speedup vs C code is pretty much the same as for the 32 bit
case; on the A53 it's around 6-13x for ther larger 8tap filters.
The exact speedup varies a little, since the C versions generally
don't end up exactly as slow/fast as on 32 bit.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commit
383d96aa22.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
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 16x16 and 32x32
transforms in slices 8 pixels wide instead of 4. This gives
a speedup of around 1.4x compared to the 32 bit version.
The fact that aarch64 doesn't have the same d/q register
aliasing makes some of the macros quite a bit simpler as well.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_add_neon: 90.0 87.7
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_add_neon: 400.0 354.7
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_add_neon: 2526.5 1827.2
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_add_neon: 74.0 72.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_add_neon: 271.0 256.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_add_neon: 1960.7 1372.7
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 11988.9 8088.3
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_add_neon: 63.0 57.7
The speedup vs C code (2-4x) is smaller than in the 32 bit case,
mostly because the C code ends up significantly faster (around
1.6x faster, with GCC 5.4) when built for aarch64.
Examples of runtimes vs C on a Cortex A57 (for a slightly older version
of the patch):
A57 gcc-5.3 neon
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_add_neon: 152.2 60.0
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_add_neon: 948.2 288.0
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_add_neon: 4830.4 1380.5
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_add_neon: 153.0 58.6
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_add_neon: 789.2 180.2
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_add_neon: 3639.6 917.1
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 20462.1 4985.0
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_add_neon: 91.0 49.8
The asm is around factor 3-4 faster than C on the cortex-a57 and the asm
is around 30-50% faster on the a57 compared to the a53.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
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.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
These are ported from the ARM version; it is essentially a 1:1
port with no extra added features, but with some hand tuning
(especially for the plain copy/avg functions). The ARM version
isn't very register starved to begin with, so there's not much
to be gained from having more spare registers here - we only
avoid having to clobber callee-saved registers.
Examples of runtimes vs the 32 bit version, on a Cortex A53:
ARM AArch64
vp9_avg4_neon: 27.2 23.7
vp9_avg8_neon: 56.5 54.7
vp9_avg16_neon: 169.9 167.4
vp9_avg32_neon: 585.8 585.2
vp9_avg64_neon: 2460.3 2294.7
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 132.7 125.2
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 478.8 442.0
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 126.0 93.7
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 241.7 234.2
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 690.9 646.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 245.0 205.5
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 11273.2 11280.1
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 22980.6 22184.1
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 11549.7 10781.1
vp9_put4_neon: 18.0 17.2
vp9_put8_neon: 40.2 37.7
vp9_put16_neon: 97.4 99.5
vp9_put32_neon/armv8: 346.0 307.4
vp9_put64_neon/armv8: 1319.0 1107.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 126.7 118.2
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 465.7 434.0
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 113.0 86.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 229.7 221.6
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 658.9 621.3
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 215.0 187.5
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 10636.7 10627.8
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 21076.8 21026.9
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 9635.0 9632.4
These are generally about as fast as the corresponding ARM
routines on the same CPU (at least on the A53), in most cases
marginally faster.
The speedup vs C code is pretty much the same as for the 32 bit
case; on the A53 it's around 6-13x for ther larger 8tap filters.
The exact speedup varies a little, since the C versions generally
don't end up exactly as slow/fast as on 32 bit.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
Restore alphabetical order in lists, break overly long lines, do some
prettyprinting, add some explanatory section comments, group parts
together that belong together logically.
~25% faster dts decoding overall. The checkasm CPU cycles numbers are
not that useful since synth_filter_float() calls FFTContext.imdct_half().
cortex-a57 cortex-a53
synth_filter_float_c: 1866.2 3490.9
synth_filter_float_neon: 915.0 1531.5
With fftc.imdct_half forced to imdct_half_neon:
cortex-a57 cortex-a53
synth_filter_float_c: 1718.4 3025.3
synth_filter_float_neon: 926.2 1530.1
Andreas Rheinhardt
Logan Lyu
J. Dekker
Swinney, Jonathan
Ben Avison
Josh Dekker
Reimar Döffinger
Martin Storsjö
Carl Eugen Hoyos
Lynne
Magnus Röös
Matthieu Bouron
Clément Bœsch
Rostislav Pehlivanov
Xiaolei Yu
James Almer
Diego Biurrun
foo86
Janne Grunau
Janne Grunau