opus - Apr 2017 - 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization

Hi,

Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization. Please
review.

Thanks,
Linfeng Zhang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170419/f08f5030/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Optimize-silk_biquad_alt-for-ARM-NEON.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 33642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170419/f08f5030/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Update-silk_biquad_alt-and-silk_biquad_float.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 7945 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170419/f08f5030/attachment-0003.bin>

Hi Linfeng,

Thanks for the patches. I'll have a look and get back to you. What kind
of speedup are you getting for these functions? On what command line?

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

On 19/04/17 12:29 PM, Linfeng Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization. Please
> review. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Linfeng Zhang
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> opus mailing list
> opus at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
>

>>> Linfeng Zhang <linfengz at google.com> schrieb am 19.04.2017
um 18:29 in Nachricht
<CAKoqLCDX3eCUGbnZFvRzhiCV1Mbo2ksbj8K+pcVu60Dvit7WCQ at
mail.gmail.com>:
> Hi,
> 
> Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization. Please
> review.
Out of curiosity: How do you test "The optimization is bit exact with C
function."? Use one example, or use a few random examples, or use a defined
test suite? Or is is done per code inspection?

Regards,
Ulrich
> 
> Thanks,
> Linfeng Zhang

Hi Ulrich,

As Jean-mark recommended, we created "--enable-check-asm" config
option to
active OPUS_CHECK_ASM macros in the optimization, where the C function is
called inside and the results of C and optimization functions are compared
when encoding/decoding the real audio files.

Thanks,
Linfeng

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Ulrich Windl <
Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >>> Linfeng Zhang <linfengz at google.com> schrieb am
19.04.2017 um 18:29 in
> Nachricht
> <CAKoqLCDX3eCUGbnZFvRzhiCV1Mbo2ksbj8K+pcVu60Dvit7WCQ at
mail.gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization.
Please
> > review.
>
> Out of curiosity: How do you test "The optimization is bit exact with
C
> function."? Use one example, or use a few random examples, or use a
defined
> test suite? Or is is done per code inspection?
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Linfeng Zhang
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170424/f7f42431/attachment.html>

Hi Jean-Marc,

Tested on my chromebook, when stride (channel) == 1, the optimization has
no gain compared with C function.
When stride (channel) == 2, the optimization is 1.2%-1.8% faster (1.6% at
Complexity 8) compared with C function.

Please let me know and I can remove the optimization of stride 1 case.

If it's allowed to skip the split of A_Q28 and replace by 32-bit
multiplication (result is 64-bit), probably it could be faster on NEON.
This may change the encoder results because of different order of adding,
shifting and rounding.

Thanks,
Linfeng


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca>
wrote:
> Hi Linfeng,
>
> Thanks for the patches. I'll have a look and get back to you. What kind
> of speedup are you getting for these functions? On what command line?
>
> Cheers,
>
>         Jean-Marc
>
> On 19/04/17 12:29 PM, Linfeng Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization.
Please
> > review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Linfeng Zhang
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > opus mailing list
> > opus at xiph.org
> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170424/f3262546/attachment.html>