The latter is 1 cycle faster on a cortex-53 and since the operands are
bytewise (or larger) bitmask (impossible to overflow to zero) both are
equivalent.
Since aarch64 has enough free general purpose registers use them to
branch to the appropiate storage code. 1-2 cycles faster for the
functions using loop_filter 8/16, ... on a cortex-a53. Mixed results
(up to 2 cycles faster/slower) on a cortex-a57.
In the latest git commits of libilbc developers removed WebRtc_xxx typedefs.
This commit uses int types instead. It's safe to apply also for previous
versions since WebRtc_Word16 was always a typedef of int16_t and
WebRtc_UWord16 a typedef of uint16_t.
Reviewed-by: Timothy Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Diego Biurrun <diego@biurrun.de>
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>
