This was correct for H.26[45], because libmfx uses the same values
derived from profile_idc and the constraint_set flags, but it is
wrong for other codecs.
Also avoid passing FF_LEVEL_UNKNOWN (-99) as the level, as this is
certainly invalid.
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; 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>
libavcodec/ratecontrol.c:120:9: warning: ISO C forbids initialization between function pointer and ‘void *’ [-Wpedantic]
libavcodec/ratecontrol.c:121:9: warning: ISO C forbids initialization between function pointer and ‘void *’ [-Wpedantic]
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
The implementation tries to have smart handling of cases
where no pixels need the full filtering for the 8/16 width
filters, skipping both calculation and writeback of the
unmodified pixels in those cases. The actual effect of this
is hard to test with checkasm though, since it tests the
full filtering, and the benefit depends on how many filtered
blocks use the shortcut.
Examples of relative speedup compared to the C version, from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_loop_filter_h_4_8_neon: 2.72 2.68 1.78 3.15
vp9_loop_filter_h_8_8_neon: 2.36 2.38 1.70 2.91
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 1.80 1.89 1.45 2.01
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_16_neon: 2.81 2.78 2.18 3.16
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_44_16_neon: 2.65 2.67 1.93 3.05
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_48_16_neon: 2.46 2.38 1.81 2.85
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_84_16_neon: 2.50 2.41 1.73 2.85
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_h_88_16_neon: 2.77 2.66 1.96 3.23
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_44_16_neon: 4.28 4.46 3.22 5.70
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_48_16_neon: 3.92 4.00 3.03 5.19
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_84_16_neon: 3.97 4.31 2.98 5.33
vp9_loop_filter_mix2_v_88_16_neon: 3.91 4.19 3.06 5.18
vp9_loop_filter_v_4_8_neon: 4.53 4.47 3.31 6.05
vp9_loop_filter_v_8_8_neon: 3.58 3.99 2.92 5.17
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 3.40 3.50 2.81 4.68
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 4.66 4.41 3.74 6.02
The speedup vs C code is around 2-6x. The numbers are quite
inconclusive though, since the checkasm test runs multiple filterings
on top of each other, so later rounds might end up with different
codepaths (different decisions on which filter to apply, based
on input pixel differences). Disabling the early-exit in the asm
doesn't give a fair comparison either though, since the C code
only does the necessary calcuations for each row.
Based on START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER wrapping around a few individual
functions, the speedup vs C code is around 4-9x.
This is pretty similar in runtime to the corresponding routines
in libvpx. (This is comparing vpx_lpf_vertical_16_neon,
vpx_lpf_horizontal_edge_8_neon and vpx_lpf_horizontal_edge_16_neon
to vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon, vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon
and vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon - note that the naming of horizonal
and vertical is flipped between the libraries.)
In order to have stable, comparable numbers, the early exits in both
asm versions were disabled, forcing the full filtering codepath.
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_loop_filter_h_16_8_neon: 597.2 472.0 482.4 415.0
libvpx vpx_lpf_vertical_16_neon: 626.0 464.5 470.7 445.0
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_8_neon: 500.2 422.5 429.7 295.0
libvpx vpx_lpf_horizontal_edge_8_neon: 586.5 414.5 415.6 383.2
vp9_loop_filter_v_16_16_neon: 905.0 784.7 791.5 546.0
libvpx vpx_lpf_horizontal_edge_16_neon: 1060.2 751.7 743.5 685.2
Our version is consistently faster on on A7 and A53, marginally slower on
A8, and sometimes faster, sometimes slower on A9 (marginally slower in all
three tests in this particular test run).
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
For the transforms up to 8x8, we can fit all the data (including
temporaries) in registers and just do a straightforward transform
of all the data. For 16x16, we do a transform of 4x16 pixels in
4 slices, using a temporary buffer. For 32x32, we transform 4x32
pixels at a time, in two steps of 4x16 pixels each.
Examples of relative speedup compared to the C version, from checkasm:
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_inv_adst_adst_4x4_add_neon: 3.39 5.83 4.17 4.01
vp9_inv_adst_adst_8x8_add_neon: 3.79 4.86 4.23 3.98
vp9_inv_adst_adst_16x16_add_neon: 3.33 4.36 4.11 4.16
vp9_inv_dct_dct_4x4_add_neon: 4.06 6.16 4.59 4.46
vp9_inv_dct_dct_8x8_add_neon: 4.61 6.01 4.98 4.86
vp9_inv_dct_dct_16x16_add_neon: 3.35 3.44 3.36 3.79
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 3.89 3.50 3.79 4.42
vp9_inv_wht_wht_4x4_add_neon: 3.22 5.13 3.53 3.77
Thus, the speedup vs C code is around 3-6x.
This is mostly marginally faster than the corresponding routines
in libvpx on most cores, tested with their 32x32 idct (compared to
vpx_idct32x32_1024_add_neon). These numbers are slightly in libvpx's
favour since their version doesn't clear the input buffer like ours
do (although the effect of that on the total runtime probably is
negligible.)
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
vp9_inv_dct_dct_32x32_add_neon: 18436.8 16874.1 14235.1 11988.9
libvpx vpx_idct32x32_1024_add_neon 20789.0 13344.3 15049.9 13030.5
Only on the Cortex A8, the libvpx function is faster. On the other cores,
ours is slightly faster even though ours has got source block clearing
integrated.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
When decoding with threads enabled, the get_format callback will be
called with one of the per-thread codec contexts rather than with the
outer context. If a hwaccel is in use too, this will add a reference
to the hardware frames context on that codec context, which will then
propagate to all of the other per-thread contexts for decoding. Once
the decoder finishes, however, the per-thread contexts are not freed
normally, so these references leak.
This fixes crashes since 557c1675cf in linux PIC builds.
Previously, movrelx silently used r12 as helper register, which
doesn't work when r12 is the destination register.
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
This work is sponsored by, and copyright, Google.
The speedup for the large horizontal filters is surprisingly
big on A7 and A53, while there's a minor slowdown (almost within
measurement noise) on A8 and A9.
Cortex A7 A8 A9 A53
orig:
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 20270.0 14447.3 19723.9 10910.9
new:
vp9_put_8tap_smooth_64h_neon: 20165.8 14466.5 19730.2 10668.8
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>
This fixes heap-use-after-free detected by AddressSanitizer.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Cadhalpun <Andreas.Cadhalpun@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
This will allow implementing the allocator more fully, which is needed
by the HEVC encoder plugin with video memory input.
Signed-off-by: Maxym Dmytrychenko <maxym.dmytrychenko@intel.com>
For encoding, this avoids modifying the input surface, which we are not
allowed to do.
This will also be useful in the following commits.
Signed-off-by: Maxym Dmytrychenko <maxym.dmytrychenko@intel.com>
This is in the same the same vein as 380146924e.
Signed-off-by: Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenhuis@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
libavcodec/x86/rv40dsp_init.c:97:2: warning: ISO C does not allow extra ‘;’ outside of a function [-Wpedantic]
libavcodec/x86/vp9dsp_init.c:94:40: warning: ISO C does not allow extra ‘;’ outside of a function [-Wpedantic]
This fixes errors like this when building non-pic binaries with armv6
as baseline:
Error: invalid literal constant: pool needs to be closer
Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>
libavcodec/dnxhdenc.c(326) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/dnxhdenc.c(329) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/pixblockdsp.c(58) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/pixblockdsp.c(63) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/pixblockdsp.c(66) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/ituh263dec.c(215) : warning C4028: formal parameter 1 different from declaration
libavcodec/ituh263dec.c(215) : warning C4028: formal parameter 2 different from declaration
The include of config.h was added in 2012 in 1d9c2dc8, due to
the use of CONFIG_SNOW_ENCODER ifdefs within options_table.h.
When the snow codec was dropped later (in a0c5917f8 in 2013),
this include no longer served any purpose.
options_table.h is included in builds for the host as well, when
building documentation. config.h should not be included in code
that is built for the host, since it can contain workarounds
for the target compiler/environment, like adding a missing define
of restrict, defining getenv(x) to NULL for environments that lack
getenv.
The seemingly innocent include reordering in 2025d37871 broke
builds that have getenv(x) defined to NULL in config.h (Windows CE
and Windows Phone/RT), since libavcodec/options_table.h include
config.h, while libavformat/options_table.h end up bringing in
more system headers, and those system headers can contain a proper
definition of getenv, which clash with the getenv define in config.h.
This was avoided earlier as long as libavformat/options_table.h (or
avformat.h) was included before libavcodec/options_table.h.
This fixes builds for Windows Phone/RT and CE.
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>
Mark Thompson
Janne Grunau
Martin Storsjö
Diego Biurrun
Anton Khirnov
Vittorio Giovara
Andreas Cadhalpun
Hendrik Leppkes
Derek Buitenhuis