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.
The filter coefficients are signed values, where the product of the
multiplication with one individual filter coefficient doesn't
overflow a 16 bit signed value (the largest filter coefficient is
127). But when the products are accumulated, the resulting sum can
overflow the 16 bit signed range. Instead of accumulating in 32 bit,
we accumulate the largest product (either index 3 or 4) last with a
saturated addition.
(The VP8 MC asm does something similar, but slightly simpler, by
accumulating each half of the filter separately. In the VP9 MC
filters, each half of the filter can also overflow though, so the
largest component has to be handled individually.)
Examples of relative speedup compared to the C version, from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_avg4_neon: 1.71 1.15 1.42 1.49
vp9_avg8_neon: 2.51 3.63 3.14 2.58
vp9_avg16_neon: 2.95 6.76 3.01 2.84
vp9_avg32_neon: 3.29 6.64 2.85 3.00
vp9_avg64_neon: 3.47 6.67 3.14 2.80
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 3.22 4.73 2.76 4.67
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 3.67 4.76 3.28 4.71
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 5.52 7.60 4.60 6.31
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 6.22 9.04 5.12 9.32
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 6.38 8.21 5.72 8.17
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 9.22 12.66 8.15 11.10
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 7.02 10.23 5.54 11.58
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 6.76 9.46 5.93 9.40
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 10.76 14.13 9.46 13.37
vp9_put4_neon: 1.11 1.47 1.00 1.21
vp9_put8_neon: 1.23 2.17 1.94 1.48
vp9_put16_neon: 1.63 4.02 1.73 1.97
vp9_put32_neon: 1.56 4.92 2.00 1.96
vp9_put64_neon: 2.10 5.28 2.03 2.35
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 3.11 4.35 2.63 4.35
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 3.67 4.69 3.25 4.71
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 5.45 7.27 4.49 6.52
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 5.97 8.18 4.81 8.56
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 6.39 7.90 5.64 8.15
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 9.03 11.84 8.07 11.51
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 6.78 9.48 4.88 10.89
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 6.99 8.87 5.94 9.56
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 10.69 13.30 9.43 14.34
For the larger 8tap filters, the speedup vs C code is around 5-14x.
This is significantly faster than libvpx's implementation of the same
functions, at least when comparing the put_8tap_smooth_64 functions
(compared to vpx_convolve8_horiz_neon and vpx_convolve8_vert_neon from
libvpx).
Absolute runtimes from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 20150.3 14489.4 19733.6 10863.7
libvpx vpx_convolve8_horiz_neon: 52623.3 19736.4 21907.7 25027.7
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 14455.0 12303.9 13746.4 9628.9
libvpx vpx_convolve8_vert_neon: 42090.0 17706.2 17659.9 16941.2
Thus, on the A9, the horizontal filter is only marginally faster than
libvpx, while our version is significantly faster on the other cores,
and the vertical filter is significantly faster on all cores. The
difference is especially large on the A7.
The libvpx implementation does the accumulation in 32 bit, which
probably explains most of the differences.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commits
ffbd1d2b00,
392caa65df,
557c1675cf and
11623217e3.
Signed-off-by: Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com>
Make them aligned, to allow efficient access to them from simd.
This is an adapted cherry-pick from libav commit
a4cfcddcb0.
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.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
The filter coefficients are signed values, where the product of the
multiplication with one individual filter coefficient doesn't
overflow a 16 bit signed value (the largest filter coefficient is
127). But when the products are accumulated, the resulting sum can
overflow the 16 bit signed range. Instead of accumulating in 32 bit,
we accumulate the largest product (either index 3 or 4) last with a
saturated addition.
(The VP8 MC asm does something similar, but slightly simpler, by
accumulating each half of the filter separately. In the VP9 MC
filters, each half of the filter can also overflow though, so the
largest component has to be handled individually.)
Examples of relative speedup compared to the C version, from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_avg4_neon: 1.71 1.15 1.42 1.49
vp9_avg8_neon: 2.51 3.63 3.14 2.58
vp9_avg16_neon: 2.95 6.76 3.01 2.84
vp9_avg32_neon: 3.29 6.64 2.85 3.00
vp9_avg64_neon: 3.47 6.67 3.14 2.80
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 3.22 4.73 2.76 4.67
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 3.67 4.76 3.28 4.71
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 5.52 7.60 4.60 6.31
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 6.22 9.04 5.12 9.32
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 6.38 8.21 5.72 8.17
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 9.22 12.66 8.15 11.10
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 7.02 10.23 5.54 11.58
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 6.76 9.46 5.93 9.40
vp9_avg_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 10.76 14.13 9.46 13.37
vp9_put4_neon: 1.11 1.47 1.00 1.21
vp9_put8_neon: 1.23 2.17 1.94 1.48
vp9_put16_neon: 1.63 4.02 1.73 1.97
vp9_put32_neon: 1.56 4.92 2.00 1.96
vp9_put64_neon: 2.10 5.28 2.03 2.35
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4h_neon: 3.11 4.35 2.63 4.35
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4hv_neon: 3.67 4.69 3.25 4.71
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_4v_neon: 5.45 7.27 4.49 6.52
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8h_neon: 5.97 8.18 4.81 8.56
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8hv_neon: 6.39 7.90 5.64 8.15
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_8v_neon: 9.03 11.84 8.07 11.51
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 6.78 9.48 4.88 10.89
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64hv_neon: 6.99 8.87 5.94 9.56
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 10.69 13.30 9.43 14.34
For the larger 8tap filters, the speedup vs C code is around 5-14x.
This is significantly faster than libvpx's implementation of the same
functions, at least when comparing the put_8tap_smooth_64 functions
(compared to vpx_convolve8_horiz_neon and vpx_convolve8_vert_neon from
libvpx).
Absolute runtimes from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 20150.3 14489.4 19733.6 10863.7
libvpx vpx_convolve8_horiz_neon: 52623.3 19736.4 21907.7 25027.7
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64v_neon: 14455.0 12303.9 13746.4 9628.9
libvpx vpx_convolve8_vert_neon: 42090.0 17706.2 17659.9 16941.2
Thus, on the A9, the horizontal filter is only marginally faster than
libvpx, while our version is significantly faster on the other cores,
and the vertical filter is significantly faster on all cores. The
difference is especially large on the A7.
The libvpx implementation does the accumulation in 32 bit, which
probably explains most of the differences.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This makes it match the pattern already used for VP8 MC functions.
This also makes the signature match ffmpeg's version of these
functions, easing porting of code in both directions.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
Also disable the mmx/iwht optimization when the bitexact flag is set.
With synthetically coded coefficients (i.e. these that lead to a
residual well outside the [-255,255] range), our optimizations will
overflow. It doesn't make sense to fix the overflows, since they can
only occur on synthetic input, not on real fwht-generated input. Thus,
add a bitexact flag that disables this optimization.
This patch adds MSA (MIPS-SIMD-Arch) optimizations for VP9 MC functions in new file vp9_mc_msa.c
Signed-off-by: Shivraj Patil <shivraj.patil@imgtec.com>
Reviewed-by: "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
The directional intra predictors either don't care about order (dc, h,
dc_left, tm), or they prefer inverted order (vr, dr, hd). This allows
more efficient SIMD implementations.
before:
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 16.29s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 16.323 total
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 16.32s user 0.01s system 99% cpu 16.351 total
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 16.27s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 16.335 total
after:
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 15.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 15.257 total
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 15.20s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 15.237 total
./ffmpeg -v 0 -nostats -i ~/samples/vp9/etv.webm -f null - 15.19s user 0.02s system 99% cpu 15.227 total
Originally written by Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje@gmail.com> and
Clément Bœsch <u@pkh.me>
Further contributions by:
Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>
Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de>
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
Signed-off-by: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
Signed-off-by: Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>
The memset following the memcpy was silencing the problem since
re-writing that same byte.
Fixes CID1108597, CID1108598, (16x16)
CID1108599, CID1108600, (8x8)
CID1108601, CID1108602 (32x32)
Signed-off-by: Clément Bœsch <u@pkh.me>
Ronald S. Bultje
Clément Bœsch
Martin Storsjö
Shivraj Patil
Michael Niedermayer
Ronald S. Bultje