Chiebot-Mirror/FFmpeg - FFmpeg - Gitea: Git with a cup of tea

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Martin Storsjö	65074791e8	aarch64: vp9dsp: Fix vertical alignment in the init file Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>	8 years ago
Martin Storsjö	9d2afd1eb8	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. Signed-off-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@martin.st>	8 years ago
Martin Storsjö	3c9546dfaf	aarch64: vp9: Add NEON itxfm routines 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>	8 years ago
Martin Storsjö	383d96aa22	aarch64: vp9: Add NEON optimizations of VP9 MC functions 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>	8 years ago
Martin Storsjö	ffbd1d2b00	arm: vp9: Add NEON optimizations of VP9 MC functions 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>	8 years ago