Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (8078)

• ARM compiler update

  15 janvier 2010, par Mans — ARM, Compilers

  Since my last shootout, all the tested vendors have updated their compilers. Here is a quick update on each of them.

  Both the 4.3 and 4.4 branches of FSF GCC have had bugfix releases, bringing them to 4.3.4 and 4.4.2, respectively. Neither update contains anything particularly noteworthy.

  The CodeSourcery 2009q3 release sees an update to a GCC 4.4 base, a significant change from the 4.3 base used in 2009q1. The update is a mixed blessing. In fact, it is mostly a curse and hardly a blessing at all. On the bright side, the floating-point speed regressions in 2009q1 are gone, 2009q3 being a few per cent faster even than 2007q3. Unfortunately, this improvement is completely overshadowed by a major speed regression on integer code, a whopping 24% in one case. This ties in with the slowdown previously observed with FSF GCC 4.4 compared to 4.3.

  ARM RVCT 4.0 is now at Build 697. This update fixes some bugs and introduces others. Notably, it no longer builds FFmpeg correctly. The issue has been reported to ARM.

  Texas Instruments, finally, have made a formal release, v4.6.1, of their TMS470 compiler incorporating various fixes allowing it to build a moderately patched FFmpeg. The performance remains somewhere between GCC and RVCT on average.

  In light of the above, my recommendations remain unchanged :

  • For a free compiler, choose CodeSourcery 2009q1. It beats GCC 4.3.4 by 5-10% in most cases.
  • GNU purists are best served by GCC 4.3.4, which is up to 20% faster than 4.4.2 and rarely slower.
  • When price is not a concern, ARM RCVT is a good option, outperforming GCC by up to a factor 2.
  • In all cases, disable any auto-vectorisation features.

  Regardless of which compiler is chosen, I cannot overstress the importance of testing. All compilers are crawling with bugs, and even the most innocent-looking code change can trigger one of them. When using a compiler other than GCC, extra caution is advised considering a lot of code is developed using only GCC and may thus fall prey to bugs unique to said other compiler.

• IJG swings again, and misses

  1er février 2010, par Mans — Multimedia

  Earlier this month the IJG unleashed version 8 of its ubiquitous libjpeg library on the world. Eager to try out the “major breakthrough in image coding technology” promised in the README file accompanying v7, I downloaded the release. A glance at the README file suggests something major indeed is afoot :

  Version 8.0 is the first release of a new generation JPEG standard to overcome the limitations of the original JPEG specification.

  The text also hints at the existence of a document detailing these marvellous new features, and a Google search later a copy has found its way onto my monitor. As I read, however, my state of mind shifts from an initial excited curiosity, through bewilderment and disbelief, finally arriving at pure merriment.

  Already on the first page it becomes clear no new JPEG standard in fact exists. All we have is an unsolicited proposal sent to the ITU-T by members of the IJG. Realising that even the most brilliant of inventions must start off as mere proposals, I carry on reading. The summary informs me that I am about to witness the introduction of three extensions to the T.81 JPEG format :

  1. An alternative coefficient scan sequence for DCT coefficient serialization
  2. A SmartScale extension in the Start-Of-Scan (SOS) marker segment
  3. A Frame Offset definition in or in addition to the Start-Of-Frame (SOF) marker segment

  Together these three extensions will, it is promised, “bring DCT based JPEG back to the forefront of state-of-the-art image coding technologies.”

  Alternative scan

  The first of the proposed extensions introduces an alternative DCT coefficient scan sequence to be used in place of the zigzag scan employed in most block transform based codecs.

  

  Alternative scan sequence

  The advantage of this scan would be that combined with the existing progressive mode, it simplifies decoding of an initial low-resolution image which is enhanced through subsequent passes. The author of the document calls this scheme “image-pyramid/hierarchical multi-resolution coding.” It is not immediately obvious to me how this constitutes even a small advance in image coding technology.

  At this point I am beginning to suspect that our friend from the IJG has been trapped in a half-world between interlaced GIF images transmitted down noisy phone lines and today’s inferno of SVC, MVC, and other buzzwords.

  (Not so) SmartScale

  Disguised behind this camel-cased moniker we encounter a method which, we are told, will provide better image quality at high compression ratios. The author has combined two well-known (to us) properties in a (to him) clever way.

  The first property concerns the perceived impact of different types of distortion in an image. When encoding with JPEG, as the quantiser is increased, the decoded image becomes ever more blocky. At a certain point, a better subjective visual quality can be achieved by down-sampling the image before encoding it, thus allowing a lower quantiser to be used. If the decoded image is scaled back up to the original size, the unpleasant, blocky appearance is replaced with a smooth blur.

  The second property belongs to the DCT where, as we all know, the top-left (DC) coefficient is the average of the entire block, its neighbours represent the lowest frequency components etc. A top-left-aligned subset of the coefficient block thus represents a low-resolution version of the full block in the spatial domain.

  In his flash of genius, our hero came up with the idea of using the DCT for down-scaling the image. Unfortunately, he appears to possess precious little knowledge of sampling theory and human visual perception. Any block-based resampling will inevitably produce sharp artefacts along the block edges. The human visual system is particularly sensitive to sharp edges, so this is one of the most unwanted types of distortion in an encoded image.

  Despite the obvious flaws in this approach, I decided to give it a try. After all, the software is already written, allowing downscaling by factors of 8/8..16.

  Using a 1280×720 test image, I encoded it with each of the nine scaling options, from unity to half size, each time adjusting the quality parameter for a final encoded file size of no more than 200000 bytes. The following table presents the encoded file size, the libjpeg quality parameter used, and the SSIM metric for each of the images.

  Scale	Size	Quality	SSIM
  8/8	198462	59	0.940
  8/9	196337	70	0.936
  8/10	196133	79	0.934
  8/11	197179	84	0.927
  8/12	193872	89	0.915
  8/13	197153	92	0.914
  8/14	188334	94	0.899
  8/15	198911	96	0.886
  8/16	197190	97	0.869

  Although the smaller images allowed a higher quality setting to be used, the SSIM value drops significantly. Numbers may of course be misleading, but the images below speak for themselves. These are cut-outs from the full image, the original on the left, unscaled JPEG-compressed in the middle, and JPEG with 8/16 scaling to the right.

  

  

  Looking at these images, I do not need to hesitate before picking the JPEG variant I prefer.

  Frame offset

  The third and final extension proposed is quite simple and also quite pointless : a top-left cropping to be applied to the decoded image. The alleged utility of this feature would be to enable lossless cropping of a JPEG image. In a typical image workflow, however, JPEG is only used for the final published version, so the need for this feature appears quite far-fetched.

  The grand finale

  Throughout the text, the author makes references to “the fundamental DCT property for image representation.” In his own words :

  This property was found by the author during implementation of the new DCT scaling features and is after his belief one of the most important discoveries in digital image coding after releasing the JPEG standard in 1992.

  The secret is to be revealed in an annex to the main text. This annex quotes in full a post by the author to the comp.dsp Usenet group in a thread with the subject why DCT. Reading the entire thread proves quite amusing. A few excerpts follow.

  The actual reason is much simpler, and therefore apparently very difficult to recognize by complicated-thinking people.

  Here is the explanation :

  What are people doing when they have a bunch of images and want a quick preview ? They use thumbnails ! What are thumbnails ? Thumbnails are small downscaled versions of the original image ! If you want more details of the image, you can zoom in stepwise by enlarging (upscaling) the image.

  So with proper understanding of the fundamental DCT property, the MPEG folks could make their videos more scalable, but, as in the case of JPEG, they are unable to recognize this simple but basic property, unfortunately, and pursue rather inferior approaches in actual developments.

  These are just phrases, and they don’t explain anything. But this is typical for the current state in this field : The relevant people ignore and deny the true reasons, and thus they turn in a circle and no progress is being made.

  However, there are dark forces in action today which ignore and deny any fruitful advances in this field. That is the reason that we didn’t see any progress in JPEG for more than a decade, and as long as those forces dominate, we will see more confusion and less enlightenment. The truth is always simple, and the DCT *is* simple, but this fact is suppressed by established people who don’t want to lose their dubious position.

  I believe a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex may be in order. Perhaps his tin-foil hat will save him.

• Anatomy of an optimization : H.264 deblocking

  26 mai 2010, par Dark Shikari — H.264, assembly, development, speed, x264

  As mentioned in the previous post, H.264 has an adaptive deblocking filter. But what exactly does that mean — and more importantly, what does it mean for performance ? And how can we make it as fast as possible ? In this post I’ll try to answer these questions, particularly in relation to my recent deblocking optimizations in x264.

  H.264′s deblocking filter has two steps : strength calculation and the actual filter. The first step calculates the parameters for the second step. The filter runs on all the edges in each macroblock. That’s 4 vertical edges of length 16 pixels and 4 horizontal edges of length 16 pixels. The vertical edges are filtered first, from left to right, then the horizontal edges, from top to bottom (order matters !). The leftmost edge is the one between the current macroblock and the left macroblock, while the topmost edge is the one between the current macroblock and the top macroblock.

  Here’s the formula for the strength calculation in progressive mode. The highest strength that applies is always selected.

  If we’re on the edge between an intra macroblock and any other macroblock : Strength 4
  If we’re on an internal edge of an intra macroblock : Strength 3
  If either side of a 4-pixel-long edge has residual data : Strength 2
  If the motion vectors on opposite sides of a 4-pixel-long edge are at least a pixel apart (in either x or y direction) or the reference frames aren’t the same : Strength 1
  Otherwise : Strength 0 (no deblocking)

  These values are then thrown into a lookup table depending on the quantizer : higher quantizers have stronger deblocking. Then the actual filter is run with the appropriate parameters. Note that Strength 4 is actually a special deblocking mode that performs a much stronger filter and affects more pixels.

  One can see somewhat intuitively why these strengths are chosen. The deblocker exists to get rid of sharp edges caused by the block-based nature of H.264, and so the strength depends on what exists that might cause such sharp edges. The strength calculation is a way to use existing data from the video stream to make better decisions during the deblocking process, improving compression and quality.

  Both the strength calculation and the actual filter (not described here) are very complex if naively implemented. The latter can be SIMD’d with not too much difficulty ; no H.264 decoder can get away with reasonable performance without such a thing. But what about optimizing the strength calculation ? A quick analysis shows that this can be beneficial as well.

  Since we have to check both horizontal and vertical edges, we have to check up to 32 pairs of coefficient counts (for residual), 16 pairs of reference frame indices, and 128 motion vector values (counting x and y as separate values). This is a lot of calculation ; a naive implementation can take 500-1000 clock cycles on a modern CPU. Of course, there’s a lot of shortcuts we can take. Here’s some examples :

  • If the macroblock uses the 8×8 transform, we only need to check 2 edges in each direction instead of 4, because we don’t deblock inside of the 8×8 blocks.
  • If the macroblock is a P-skip, we only have to check the first edge in each direction, since there’s guaranteed to be no motion vector differences, reference frame differences, or residual inside of the macroblock.
  • If the macroblock has no residual at all, we can skip that check.
  • If we know the partition type of the macroblock, we can do motion vector checks only along the edges of the partitions.
  • If the effective quantizer is so low that no deblocking would be performed no matter what, don’t bother calculating the strength.

  But even all of this doesn’t save us from ourselves. We still have to iterate over a ton of edges, checking each one. Stuff like the partition-checking logic greatly complicates the code and adds overhead even as it reduces the number of checks. And in many cases decoupling the checks to add such logic will make it slower : if the checks are coupled, we can avoid doing a motion vector check if there’s residual, since Strength 2 overrides Strength 1.

  But wait. What if we could do this in SIMD, just like the actual loopfilter itself ? Sure, it seems more of a problem for C code than assembly, but there aren’t any obvious things in the way. Many years ago, Loren Merritt (pengvado) wrote the first SIMD implementation that I know of (for ffmpeg’s decoder) ; it is quite fast, so I decided to work on porting the idea to x264 to see if we could eke out a bit more speed here as well.

  Before I go over what I had to do to make this change, let me first describe how deblocking is implemented in x264. Since the filter is a loopfilter, it acts “in loop” and must be done in both the encoder and decoder — hence why x264 has it too, not just decoders. At the end of encoding one row of macroblocks, x264 goes back and deblocks the row, then performs half-pixel interpolation for use in encoding the next frame.

  We do it per-row for reasons of cache coherency : deblocking accesses a lot of pixels and a lot of code that wouldn’t otherwise be used, so it’s more efficient to do it in a single pass as opposed to deblocking each macroblock immediately after encoding. Then half-pixel interpolation can immediately re-use the resulting data.

  Now to the change. First, I modified deblocking to implement a subset of the macroblock_cache_load function : spend an extra bit of effort loading the necessary data into a data structure which is much simpler to address — as an assembly implementation would need (x264_macroblock_cache_load_deblock). Then I massively cleaned up deblocking to move all of the core strength-calculation logic into a single, small function that could be converted to assembly (deblock_strength_c). Finally, I wrote the assembly functions and worked with Loren to optimize them. Here’s the result.

  And the timings for the resulting assembly function on my Core i7, in cycles :

  deblock_strength_c : 309
  deblock_strength_mmx : 79
  deblock_strength_sse2 : 37
  deblock_strength_ssse3 : 33

  Now that is a seriously nice improvement. 33 cycles on average to perform that many comparisons–that’s absurdly low, especially considering the SIMD takes no branchy shortcuts : it always checks every single edge ! I walked over to my performance chart and happily crossed off a box.

  But I had a hunch that I could do better. Remember, as mentioned earlier, we’re reloading all that data back into our data structures in order to address it. This isn’t that slow, but takes enough time to significantly cut down on the gain of the assembly code. And worse, less than a row ago, all this data was in the correct place to be used (when we just finished encoding the macroblock) ! But if we did the deblocking right after encoding each macroblock, the cache issues would make it too slow to be worth it (yes, I tested this). So I went back to other things, a bit annoyed that I couldn’t get the full benefit of the changes.

  Then, yesterday, I was talking with Pascal, a former Xvid dev and current video hacker over at Google, about various possible x264 optimizations. He had seen my deblocking changes and we discussed that a bit as well. Then two lines hit me like a pile of bricks :

  <_skal_> tried computing the strength at least ?
  <_skal_> while it’s fresh

  Why hadn’t I thought of that ? Do the strength calculation immediately after encoding each macroblock, save the result, and then go pick it up later for the main deblocking filter. Then we can use the data right there and then for strength calculation, but we don’t have to do the whole deblock process until later.

  I went and implemented it and, after working my way through a horde of bugs, eventually got a working implementation. A big catch was that of slices : deblocking normally acts between slices even though normal encoding does not, so I had to perform extra munging to get that to work. By midday today I was able to go cross yet another box off on the performance chart. And now it’s committed.

  Sometimes chatting for 10 minutes with another developer is enough to spot the idea that your brain somehow managed to miss for nearly a straight week.

  NB : the performance chart is on a specific test clip at a specific set of settings (super fast settings) relevant to the company I work at, so it isn’t accurate nor complete for, say, default settings.

  Update : Here’s a higher resolution version of the current chart, as requested in the comments.
  

  http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git ;a=commit ;h=b9ec3ea27812288485329ac7771143021cd4917b