On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:18:04 -0700 Rémi Denis-Courmont <r...@remlab.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Le 8 mars 2025 14:53:42 GMT-08:00, Niklas Haas <ffm...@haasn.xyz> a écrit : > >https://github.com/haasn/FFmpeg/blob/swscale3/doc/swscale-v2.txt > > >I have spent the past week or so ironing > >I wanted to post it here to gather some feedback on the approach. Where does > >it fall on the "madness" scale? Is the new operations and optimizer design > >comprehensible? Am I trying too hard to reinvent compilers? Are there any > >platforms where the high number of function calls per frame would be > >probitively expensive? What are the thoughts on the float-first approach? See > >also the list of limitations and improvement ideas at the bottom of my design > >document. > > Using floats internally may be fine if there's (almost) never any spillage, > but that necessarily implies custom calling conventions. And won't work with > as many as 32 pixels. On RVV 128-bit, you'd have only 4 vectors. On Arm NEON, > it would be even worse as scalars/constants need to be stored in vectors as > well.
I think that a custom calling convention is not as unreasonable as it may sound, and will actually be easier to implement than the standard calling convention since functions will not have to deal with pixel load/store, nor will there be any need for "fused" versions of operations (whose only purpose is to avoid the roundtrip through L1). The pixel chunk size is easily changed; it is a compile time constant and there are no strict requirements on it. If RISC-V (or any other platform) struggles with storing 32 floats in vector registers, we could go down to 16 (or even 8); the number 32 was merely chosen by benchmarking and not through any careful design consideration. During my initial prototype, I was using 16 pixel chunks (= 512 bits, or enough to fit into an m4 register on RVV 128). That still gives you room to keep 4 vectors in memory (for the custom CC) and still have 4 spare vectors to implement operations. I *think* that should be sufficient, with the current set of vector operations. > > Otherwise transferring two or even four times as much data to/from memory at > every step is probably going to more than absorb any performance gains from > using floats (notably not needing to scale values). It's quite possible. I don't think that there is any major barrier to adding fixed precision integer support to SwsOp design *per se*. The main reason I am hesitant to explore that option comes from the fact that I don't want to introduce (or encourage) platform-specific variations in the output. By forcing all platforms to adhere to a single precision, we can guarantee a consistent output regardless of the optimization decisions. So it would probably have to involve us switching from floats to fixed16 across the board, even on x86. In either case, I think I will stick with the float centric design during the development of my prototype if for no other reason than simplicity, unless there is a vary major performance issue associated with them. Do you have access to anything with decent RVV F32 support that we could use for testing? It's my understanding that existing RVV implementations have been rather primitive. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
