What is the difference between these two?
for (int i = 0; i < numSamples; i++) {
mData[sampleIndex++] = *buffer++ * (1.0f / 32768);
}
and
memcpy(&mData[sampleIndex], buffer, (numSamples * sizeof(float)));
If I understood correct, the first copies numSamples float values to mData, one by one. The second one, copies numSamples*sizeof(float) bytes to mData. Since we're copying numSaples * number of bytes on float, I think they do the same thing, but the first one actually multiplies things before passing to mData.
So, is there a way to transform the memcpy into a for? Something like:
for (int i = 0; i < numSamples * sizeof(float); i++) {
//What to put here?
}
Context:
const int32_t mChannelCount;
const int32_t mMaxFrames;
int32_t sampleIndex;
float *mData;
float *buffer;
What is the difference between these two?
for (int i = 0; i < numSamples; i++) {
mData[sampleIndex++] = *buffer++ * (1.0f / 32768);
}
// and
memcpy(&mData[sampleIndex], buffer, (numSamples * sizeof(float)));
These are quite different given the * (1.0f / 32768);. I assume the code compare is setting the scaling difference aside. #Thomas Matthews.
Important: buffer, sampleIndex has different values after the for loop.
*buffer++ needs no code change should the type of buffer change. * sizeof(float) obilgies a code change. Could have used * sizeof *buffer.
mempcy() is optimized code per that platform. for() loops can only do so much. In particular, mempcy() assumes mData, buffer do not overlap. The for() loop may not be able to make that optimization.
This for uses int indexing where memcpy() uses size_t. Makes a difference with huge arrays.
memcpy() tolerates an unaligned pointers. mData[sampleIndex++] = *buffer++ .. does not.
"the first copies numSamples float values to mData, one by one. " is a not certain. A smart compiler may be able to make certain parallel copies depending on the context and act as if copying was done one by one.
Post the entire block of code/function that uses these 2 approaches for a better compare.
I gather from your post that you want to make a memcpy similar copy but using a for loop, that being the case you just need do use the same for loop but without the multiplication part:
for (int i = 0; i < numSamples; i++){
mData[sampleIndex++] = *buffer++;
}
Note that memcpy can be more effective than a for loop given the conditions (see Maxim Egorushkin and Jeremy Friesner comments bellow) so you may want to keep it that way.
Another, more idiomatic, and, I would argue, better way to implement the operations you are performing is to use the C++ library provided methods as sugested by Ted Lyngmo and rustyx.
Disclaimer: As I was writing my answer, Martin York posted a comment with a similar solution, that being the case, credit to him as well.
What is the difference between these two?
The former performs a calculation on the source array while copying the result into another array a float at a time.
The latter copies the content of the array byte at a time into another without calculation.
So, is there a way to transform the memcpy into a for?
Yes. Here is a naïve way to transform it:
auto dest_c = static_cast<unsigned char*>(mData + sampleIndex);
auto src_c = static_cast<const unsigned char*>(buffer);
auto end = src_c + numSamples * sizeof(float);
for (; src_c < end;) { // or while(src_c < end)
*dest_c++ = *src_c++;
}
The actual implementation of the standard function is likely more complex, involving optimisations related to copying long sequences.
Since you don't appear to need the generic reinterpretation aspect of std::memcpy, perhaps a simpler alternative would suffice:
auto dest = mData + sampleIndex;
auto src = buffer;
auto end = src + numSamples;
for (; src < end;) {
*dest++ = *src++;
}
Or perhaps another standard algorithm:
std::copy(buffer, buffer + numSamples, mData + sampleIndex);
I'm using GDI+ in C++ to manipulate some Bitmap images, changing the colour and resizing the images. My code is very slow at one particular point and I was looking for some potential ways to speed up the line that's been highlighted in the VS2013 Profiler
for (UINT y = 0; y < 3000; ++y)
{
//one scanline at a time because bitmaps are stored wrong way up
byte* oRow = (byte*)bitmapData1.Scan0 + (y * bitmapData1.Stride);
for (UINT x = 0; x < 4000; ++x)
{
//get grey value from 0.114*Blue + 0.299*Red + 0.587*Green
byte grey = (oRow[x * 3] * .114) + (oRow[x * 3 + 1] * .587) + (oRow[x * 3 + 2] * .299); //THIS LINE IS THE HIGHLIGHTED ONE
//rest of manipulation code
}
}
Any handy hints on how to handle this arithmetic line better? It's causing massive slow downs in my code
Thanks in advance!
Optimization depends heavily on the used compiler and the target system. But there are some hints which may be usefull. Avoid multiplications:
Instead of:
byte grey = (oRow[x * 3] * .114) + (oRow[x * 3 + 1] * .587) + (oRow[x * 3 + 2] * .299); //THIS LINE IS THE HIGHLIGHTED ONE
use...
//get grey value from 0.114*Blue + 0.299*Red + 0.587*Green
byte grey = (*oRow) * .114;
oRow++;
grey += (*oRow) * .587;
oRow++;
grey += (*oRow) * .299;
oRow++;
You can put the incrimination of the pointer in the same line. I put it in a separate line for better understanding.
Also, instead of using the multiplication of a float you can use a table, which can be faster than arithmetic. This depends on CPU und table size, but you can give it a shot:
// somwhere global or class attributes
byte tred[256];
byte tgreen[256];
byte tblue[256];
...at startup...
// Only init once at startup
// I am ignoring the warnings, you should not :-)
for(int i=0;i<255;i++)
{
tred[i]=i*.114;
tgreen[i]=i*.587;
tblue[i]=i*.229;
}
...in the loop...
byte grey = tred[*oRow];
oRow++;
grey += tgreen[*oRow];
oRow++;
grey += tblue[*oRow];
oRow++;
Also. 255*255*255 is not such a great size. You can build one big table. As this Table will be larger than the usual CPU cache, I give it not such more speed efficiency.
As suggested, you could do math in integer, but you could also try floats instead of doubles (.114f instead of .114), which are usually quicker and you don't need the precision.
Do the loop like this, instead, to save on pointer math. Creating a temporary pointer like this won't cost because the compiler will understand what you're up to.
for(UINT x = 0; x < 12000; x+=3)
{
byte* pVal = &oRow[x];
....
}
This code is also easily threadable - the compiler can do it for you automatically in various ways; here's one, using parallel for:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd728073.aspx
If you have 4 cores, that's a 4x speedup, just about.
Also be sure to check release vs debug build - you don't know the perf until you run it in release/optimized mode.
You could premultiply values like: oRow[x * 3] * .114 and put them into an array. oRow[x*3] has 256 values, so you can easily create array aMul1 of 256 values from 0->255, and multiply it by .144. Then use aMul1[oRow[x * 3]] to find multiplied value. And the same for other components.
Actually you could even create such array for RGB values, ie. your pixel is 888, so you will need an array of size 256*256*256, which is 16777216 = ~16MB.Whether this would speed up your process, you would have to check yourself with profiler.
In general I've found that more direct pointer management, intermediate instructions, less instructions (on most CPUs, they're all equal cost these days), and less memory fetches - e.g. tables are not the answer more often than they are - is the usual optimum, without going to direct assembly. Vectorization, especially explicit is also helpful as is dumping assembly of the function and confirming the inner bits conform to your expectations. Try this:
for (UINT y = 0; y < 3000; ++y)
{
//one scanline at a time because bitmaps are stored wrong way up
byte* oRow = (byte*)bitmapData1.Scan0 + (y * bitmapData1.Stride);
byte *p = oRow;
byte *pend = p + 4000 * 3;
for(; p != pend; p+=3){
const float grey = p[0] * .114f + p[1] * .587f + p[2] * .299f;
}
//alternatively with an autovectorizing compiler
for(; p != pend; p+=3){
#pragma unroll //or use a compiler option to unroll loops
//make sure vectorization and relevant instruction sets are enabled - this is effectively a dot product so the following intrinsic fits the bill:
//https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb514054.aspx
//vector types or compiler intrinsics are more reliable often too... but get compiler specific or architecture dependent respectively.
float grey = 0;
const float w[3] = {.114f, .587f, .299f};
for(int c = 0; c < 3; ++c){
grey += w[c] * p[c];
}
}
}
Consider fooling around with OpenCL and targeting your CPU to see how fast you could solve with CPU specific optimizations and easily multiple cores - OpenCL covers this up for you pretty well and provides built in vector ops and dot product.
I'm using the next algorithm to perform nearest neighbor resizing. Is there anyway to optimize it's speed? Input and Output buffers are in ARGB format, though images are known to be always opaque. Thank you.
void resizeNearestNeighbor(const uint8_t* input, uint8_t* output, int sourceWidth, int sourceHeight, int targetWidth, int targetHeight)
{
const int x_ratio = (int)((sourceWidth << 16) / targetWidth);
const int y_ratio = (int)((sourceHeight << 16) / targetHeight) ;
const int colors = 4;
for (int y = 0; y < targetHeight; y++)
{
int y2_xsource = ((y * y_ratio) >> 16) * sourceWidth;
int i_xdest = y * targetWidth;
for (int x = 0; x < targetWidth; x++)
{
int x2 = ((x * x_ratio) >> 16) ;
int y2_x2_colors = (y2_xsource + x2) * colors;
int i_x_colors = (i_xdest + x) * colors;
output[i_x_colors] = input[y2_x2_colors];
output[i_x_colors + 1] = input[y2_x2_colors + 1];
output[i_x_colors + 2] = input[y2_x2_colors + 2];
output[i_x_colors + 3] = input[y2_x2_colors + 3];
}
}
}
restrict keyword will help a lot, assuming no aliasing.
Another improvement is to declare another pointerToOutput and pointerToInput as uint_32_t, so that the four 8-bit copy-assignments can be combined into a 32-bit one, assuming pointers are 32bit aligned.
There's little that you can do to speed this up, as you already arranged the loops in the right order and cleverly used fixed-point arithmetic. As others suggested, try to move the 32 bits in a single go (hoping that the compiler didn't see that yet).
In case of significant enlargement, there is a possibility: you can determine how many times every source pixel needs to be replicated (you'll need to work on the properties of the relation Xd=Wd.Xs/Ws in integers), and perform a single pixel read for k writes. This also works on the y's, and you can memcpy the identical rows instead of recomputing them. You can precompute and tabulate the mappings of the X's and Y's using run-length coding.
But there is a barrier that you will not pass: you need to fill the destination image.
If you are desperately looking for speedup, there could remain the option of using vector operations (SEE or AVX) to handle several pixels at a time. Shuffle instructions are available that might enable to control the replication (or decimation) of the pixels. But due to the complicated replication pattern combined with the fixed structure of the vector registers, you will probably need to integrate a complex decision table.
The algorithm is fine, but you can utilize massive parallelization by submitting your image to the GPU. If you use opengl, simply creating a context of the new size and providing a properly sized quad can give you inherent nearest neighbor calculations. Also opengl could give you access to other resizing sampling techniques by simply changing the properties of the texture you read from (which would amount to a single gl command which could be an easy paramter to your resize function).
Also later in development, you could simply swap out a shader for other blending techniques which also keeps you utilizing your wonderful GPU processor of image processing glory.
Also, since you aren't using any fancy geometry it can become almost trivial to write the program. It would be a little more involved than your algorithm, but it could perform magnitudes faster depending on image size.
I hope I didn't break anything. This combines some of the suggestions posted thus far and is about 30% faster. I'm amazed that is all we got. I did not actually check the destination image to see if it was right.
Changes:
- remove multiplies from inner loop (10% improvement)
- uint32_t instead of uint8_t (10% improvement)
- __restrict keyword (1% improvement)
This was on an i7 x64 machine running Windows, compiled with MSVC 2013. You will have to change the __restrict keyword for other compilers.
void resizeNearestNeighbor2_32(const uint8_t* __restrict input, uint8_t* __restrict output, int sourceWidth, int sourceHeight, int targetWidth, int targetHeight)
{
const uint32_t* input32 = (const uint32_t*)input;
uint32_t* output32 = (uint32_t*)output;
const int x_ratio = (int)((sourceWidth << 16) / targetWidth);
const int y_ratio = (int)((sourceHeight << 16) / targetHeight);
int x_ratio_with_color = x_ratio;
for (int y = 0; y < targetHeight; y++)
{
int y2_xsource = ((y * y_ratio) >> 16) * sourceWidth;
int i_xdest = y * targetWidth;
int source_x_offset = 0;
int startingOffset = y2_xsource;
const uint32_t * inputLine = input32 + startingOffset;
for (int x = 0; x < targetWidth; x++)
{
i_xdest += 1;
source_x_offset += x_ratio_with_color;
int sourceOffset = source_x_offset >> 16;
output[i_xdest] = inputLine[sourceOffset];
}
}
}
I am working with OpenCV and Qt, Opencv use BGR while Qt uses RGB , so I have to swap those 2 bytes for very big images.
There is a better way of doing the following?
I can not think of anything faster but looks so simple and lame...
int width = iplImage->width;
int height = iplImage->height;
uchar *iplImagePtr = (uchar *) iplImage->imageData;
uchar buf;
int limit = height * width;
for (int y = 0; y < limit; ++y) {
buf = iplImagePtr[2];
iplImagePtr[2] = iplImagePtr[0];
iplImagePtr[0] = buf;
iplImagePtr += 3;
}
QImage img((uchar *) iplImage->imageData, width, height,
QImage::Format_RGB888);
We are currently dealing with this issue in a Qt application. We've found that the Intel Performance Primitives to be be fastest way to do this. They have extremely optimized code. In the html help files at Intel ippiSwapChannels Documentation they have an example of exactly what you are looking for.
There are couple of downsides
Is the size of the library, but you can link static link just the library routines you need.
Running on AMD cpus. Intel libs run VERY slow by default on AMD. Check out www.agner.org/optimize/asmlib.zip for details on how do a work around.
I think this looks absolutely fine. That the code is simple is not something negative. If you want to make it shorter you could use std::swap:
std::swap(iplImagePtr[0], iplImagePtr[2]);
You could also do the following:
uchar* end = iplImagePtr + height * width * 3;
for ( ; iplImagePtr != end; iplImagePtr += 3) {
std::swap(iplImagePtr[0], iplImagePtr[2]);
}
There's cvConvertImage to do the whole thing in one line, but I doubt it's any faster either.
Couldn't you use one of the following methods ?
void QImage::invertPixels ( InvertMode mode = InvertRgb )
or
QImage QImage::rgbSwapped () const
Hope this helps a bit !
I would be inclined to do something like the following, working on the basis of that RGB data being in three byte blocks.
int i = 0;
int limit = (width * height); // / 3;
while(i != limit)
{
buf = iplImagePtr[i]; // should be blue colour byte
iplImagePtr[i] = iplImagaePtr[i + 2]; // save the red colour byte in the blue space
iplImagePtr[i + 2] = buf; // save the blue color byte into what was the red slot
// i++;
i += 3;
}
I doubt it is any 'faster' but at end of day, you just have to go through the entire image, pixel by pixel.
You could always do this:
int width = iplImage->width;
int height = iplImage->height;
uchar *start = (uchar *) iplImage->imageData;
uchar *end = start + width * height;
for (uchar *p = start ; p < end ; p += 3)
{
uchar buf = *p;
*p = *(p+2);
*(p+2) = buf;
}
but a decent compiler would do this anyway.
Your biggest overhead in these sorts of operations is going to be memory bandwidth.
If you're using Windows then you can probably do this conversion using the BitBlt and two appropriately set up DIBs. If you're really lucky then this could be done in the graphics hardware.
I hate to ruin anyone's day, but if you don't want to go the IPP route (see photo_tom) or pull in an optimized library, you might get better performance from the following (modifying Andreas answer):
uchar *iplImagePtr = (uchar *) iplImage->imageData;
uchar buf;
size_t limit = height * width;
for (size_t y = 0; y < limit; ++y) {
std::swap(iplImagePtr[y * 3], iplImagePtr[y * 3 + 2]);
}
Now hold on, folks, I hear you yelling "but all those extra multiplies and adds!" The thing is, this form of the loop is far easier for a compiler to optimize, especially if they get smart enough to multithread this sort of algorithm, because each pass through the loop is independent of those before or after. In the other form, the value of iplImagePtr was dependent on the value in previous pass. In this form, it is constant throughout the whole loop; only y changes, and that is in a very, very common "count from 0 to N-1" loop construct, so it's easier for an optimizer to digest.
Or maybe it doesn't make a difference these days because optimizers are insanely smart (are they?). I wonder what a benchmark would say...
P.S. If you actually benchmark this, I'd also like to see how well the following performs:
uchar *iplImagePtr = (uchar *) iplImage->imageData;
uchar buf;
size_t limit = height * width;
for (size_t y = 0; y < limit; ++y) {
uchar *pixel = iplImagePtr + y * 3;
std::swap(pix[0], pix[2]);
}
Again, pixel is defined in the loop to limit its scope and keep the optimizer from thinking there's a cycle-to-cycle dependency. If the compiler increments and decrements the stack pointer each time through the loop to "create" and "destroy" pixel, well, it's stupid and I'll apologize for wasting your time.
cvCvtColor(iplImage, iplImage, CV_BGR2RGB);
I realize this is kind of a goofy question, for lack of a better term. I'm just kind of looking for any outside idea on increasing the efficiency of this code, as it's bogging down the system very badly (it has to perform this function a lot) and I'm running low on ideas.
What it's doing it loading two image containers (imgRGB for a full color img and imgBW for a b&w image) pixel-by-individual-pixel of an image that's stored in "unsigned char *pImage".
Both imgRGB and imgBW are containers for accessing individual pixels as necessary.
// input is in the form of an unsigned char
// unsigned char *pImage
for (int y=0; y < 640; y++) {
for (int x=0; x < 480; x++) {
imgRGB[y][x].blue = *pImage;
pImage++;
imgRGB[y][x].green = *pImage;
imgBW[y][x] = *pImage;
pImage++;
imgRGB[y][x].red = *pImage;
pImage++;
}
}
Like I said, I was just kind of looking for fresh input and ideas on better memory management and/or copy than this. Sometimes I look at my own code so much I get tunnel vision... a bit of a mental block. If anyone wants/needs more information, by all means let me know.
The obvious question is, do you need to copy the data in the first place? Can't you just define accessor functions to extract the R, G and B values for any given pixel from the original input array?
If the image data is transient so you have to keep a copy of it, you could just make a raw copy of it without any reformatting, and again define accessors to index into each pixel/channel on that.
Assuming the copy you outlined is necessary, unrolling the loop a few times may prove to help.
I think the best approach will be to unroll the loop enough times to ensure that each iteration processes a chunk of data divisible by 4 bytes (so in each iteration, the loop can simply read a small number of ints, rather than a large number of chars)
Of course this requires you to mask out bits of these ints when writing, but that's a fast operation, and most importantly, it is done in registers, without burdening the memory subsystem or the CPU cache:
// First, we need to treat the input image as an array of ints. This is a bit nasty and technically unportable, but you get the idea)
unsigned int* img = reinterpret_cast<unsigned int*>(pImage);
for (int y = 0; y < 640; ++y)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 480; x += 4)
{
// At the start of each iteration, read 3 ints. That's 12 bytes, enough to write exactly 4 pixels.
unsigned int i0 = *img;
unsigned int i1 = *(img+1);
unsigned int i2 = *(img+2);
img += 3;
// This probably won't make a difference, but keeping a reference to the found pixel saves some typing, and it may assist the compiler in avoiding aliasing.
ImgRGB& pix0 = imgRGB[y][x];
pix0.blue = i0 & 0xff;
pix0.green = (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
pix0.red = (i0 >> 16) & 0xff;
imgBW[y][x] = (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
ImgRGB& pix1 = imgRGB[y][x+1];
pix1.blue = (i0 >> 24) & 0xff;
pix1.green = i1 & 0xff;
pix1.red = (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
imgBW[y][x+1] = i1 & 0xff;
ImgRGB& pix2 = imgRGB[y][x+2];
pix2.blue = (i1 >> 16) & 0xff;
pix2.green = (i1 >> 24) & 0xff;
pix2.red = i2 & 0xff;
imgBW[y][x+2] = (i1 >> 24) & 0xff;
ImgRGB& pix3 = imgRGB[y][x+3];
pix3.blue = (i2 >> 8) & 0xff;
pix3.green = (i2 >> 16) & 0xff;
pix3.red = (i2 >> 24) & 0xff;
imgBW[y][x+3] = (i2 >> 16) & 0xff;
}
}
it is also very likely that you're better off filling a temporary ImgRGB value, and then writing that entire struct to memory at once, meaning that the first block would look like this instead: (the following blocks would be similar, of course)
ImgRGB& pix0 = imgRGB[y][x];
ImgRGB tmpPix0;
tmpPix0.blue = i0 & 0xff;
tmpPix0.green = (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
tmpPix0.red = (i0 >> 16) & 0xff;
imgBW[y][x] = (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
pix0 = tmpPix0;
Depending on how clever the compiler is, this may cut down dramatically on the required number of reads.
Assuming the original code is naively compiled (which is probably unlikely, but will serve as an example), this will get you from 3 reads and 4 writes per pixel (read RGB channel, and write RGB + BW) to 3/4 reads per pixel and 2 writes. (one write for the RGB struct, and one for the BW value)
You could also accumulate the 4 writes to the BW image in a single int, and then write that in one go too, something like this:
bw |= (i0 >> 8) & 0xff;
bw |= (i1 & 0xff) << 8;
bw |= ((i1 >> 24) & 0xff) << 16;
bw |= ((i2 >> 16) & 0xff) << 24;
*(imgBW + y*480+x/4) = bw; // Assuming you can treat imgBW as an array of integers
This would cut down on the number of writes to 1.25 per pixel (1 per RGB struct, and 1 for every 4 BW values)
Again, the benefit will probably be a lot smaller (or even nonexistent), but it may be worth a shot.
Taking this a step further, the same could be done without too much trouble using the SSE instructions, allowing you to process 4 times as many values per iteration. (Assuming you're running on x86)
Of course, an important disclaimer here is that the above is nonportable. The reinterpret_cast is probably an academic point (it'll most likely work no matter what, especially if you can ensure that the original array is aligned on a 32-bit boundary, which will typically be the case for large allocations on all platforms)
A bigger issue is that the bit-twiddling depends on the CPU's endianness.
But in practice, this should work on x86. and with small changes, it should work on big-endian machines too. (modulo any bugs in my code, of course. I haven't tested or even compiled any of it ;))
But no matter how you solve it, you're going to see the biggest speed improvements from minimizing the number of reads and writes, and trying to accumulate as much data in the CPU's registers as possible. Read all you can in large chunks, like ints, reorder it in the registers (accumulate it into a number of ints, or write it into temporary instances of the RGB struct), and then write those combined value out to memory.
Depending on how much you know about low-level optimizations, it may be surprising to you, but temporary variables are fine, while direct memory to memory access can be slow (for example your pointer dereferencing assigned directly into the array). The problem with this is that you may get more memory accesses than necessary, and it's harder for the compiler to guarantee that no aliasing will occur, and so it may be unable to reorder or combine the memory accesses. You're generally better off writing as much as you can early on (top of the loop), doing as much as possible in temporaries (because the compiler can keep everything in registers), and then write everything out at the end. That also gives the compiler as much leeway as possible to wait for the initially slow reads.
Finally, adding a 4th dummy value to the RGB struct (so it has a total size of 32bit) will most likely help a lot too (because then writing such a struct is a single 32-bit write, which is simpler and more efficient than the current 24-bit)
When deciding how much to unroll the loop (you could do the above twice or more in each iteration), keep in mind how many registers your CPU has. Spilling out into the cache will probably hurt you as there are plenty of memory accesses already, but on the other hand, unroll as much as you can afford given the number of registers available (the above uses 3 registers for keeping the input data, and one to accumulate the BW values. It may need one or two more to compute the necessary addresses, so on x86, doubling the above might be pushing it a bit (you have 8 registers total, and some of them have special meanings). On the other hand, modern CPU's do a lot to compensate for register pressure, by using a much larger number of registers behind the scenes, so further unrolling might still be a total performance win.
As always, measure measure measure. It's impossible to say what's fast and what isn't until you've tested it.
Another general point to keep in mind is that data dependencies are bad. This won't be a big deal as long as you're only dealing with integral values, but it still inhibits instruction reordering, and superscalar execution.
In the above, I've tried to keep dependency chains as short as possible. Rather than continually incrementing the same pointer (which means that each increment is dependant on the previous one), adding a different offset to the same base address means that every address can be computed independently, again giving more freedom to the compiler to reorder and reschedule instructions.
I think the array accesses (are they real array accesses or operator []?) are going to kill you. Each one represents a multiply.
Basically, you want something like this:
for (int y=0; y < height; y++) {
unsigned char *destBgr = imgRgb.GetScanline(y); // inline methods are better
unsigned char *destBW = imgBW.GetScanline(y);
for (int x=0; x < width; x++) {
*destBgr++ = *pImage++;
*destBW++ = *destBgr++ = *pImage++; // do this in one shot - don't double deref
*destBgr++ = *pImage++;
}
}
This will do two multiplies per scanline. You code was doing 4 multiplies per PIXEL.
What I like to do in situations like this is go into the debugger and step through the disassembly to see what it is really doing (or have the compiler generate an assembly listing). This can give you a lot of clues about where inefficencies are. They are often not where you think!
By implementing the changes suggested by Assaf and David Lee above, you can get a before and after instruction count. This really helps me in optimizing tight inner loops.
You could optimize away some of the pointer arithmetic you're doing over and over with the subscript operators [][] and use an iterator instead (that is, advance a pointer).
Memory bandwidth is your bottleneck here. There is a theoretical minimum time required to transfer all the data to and from system memory. I wrote a little test to compare the OP's version with some simple assembler to see how good the compiler was. I'm using VS2005 with default release mode settings. Here's the code:
#include <windows.h>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const int
c_width = 640,
c_height = 480;
typedef struct _RGBData
{
unsigned char
r,
g,
b;
// I'm assuming there's no padding byte here
} RGBData;
// similar to the code given
void SimpleTest
(
unsigned char *src,
RGBData *rgb,
unsigned char *bw
)
{
for (int y = 0 ; y < c_height ; ++y)
{
for (int x = 0 ; x < c_width ; ++x)
{
rgb [x + y * c_width].b = *src;
src++;
rgb [x + y * c_width].g = *src;
bw [x + y * c_width] = *src;
src++;
rgb [x + y * c_width].r = *src;
src++;
}
}
}
// the assembler version
void ASM
(
unsigned char *src,
RGBData *rgb,
unsigned char *bw
)
{
const int
count = 3 * c_width * c_height / 12;
_asm
{
push ebp
mov esi,src
mov edi,bw
mov ecx,count
mov ebp,rgb
l1:
mov eax,[esi]
mov ebx,[esi+4]
mov edx,[esi+8]
mov [ebp],eax
shl eax,16
mov [ebp+4],ebx
rol ebx,16
mov [ebp+8],edx
shr edx,24
and eax,0xff000000
and ebx,0x00ffff00
and edx,0x000000ff
or eax,ebx
or eax,edx
add esi,12
bswap eax
add ebp,12
stosd
loop l1
pop ebp
}
}
// timing framework
LONGLONG TimeFunction
(
void (*function) (unsigned char *src, RGBData *rgb, unsigned char *bw),
char *description,
unsigned char *src,
RGBData *rgb,
unsigned char *bw
)
{
LARGE_INTEGER
start,
end;
cout << "Testing '" << description << "'...";
memset (rgb, 0, sizeof *rgb * c_width * c_height);
memset (bw, 0, c_width * c_height);
QueryPerformanceCounter (&start);
function (src, rgb, bw);
QueryPerformanceCounter (&end);
bool
ok = true;
unsigned char
*bw_check = bw,
i = 0;
RGBData
*rgb_check = rgb;
for (int count = 0 ; count < c_width * c_height ; ++count)
{
if (bw_check [count] != i || rgb_check [count].r != i || rgb_check [count].g != i || rgb_check [count].b != i)
{
ok = false;
break;
}
++i;
}
cout << (end.QuadPart - start.QuadPart) << (ok ? " OK" : " Failed") << endl;
return end.QuadPart - start.QuadPart;
}
int main
(
int argc,
char *argv []
)
{
unsigned char
*source_data = new unsigned char [c_width * c_height * 3];
RGBData
*rgb = new RGBData [c_width * c_height];
unsigned char
*bw = new unsigned char [c_width * c_height];
int
v = 0;
for (unsigned char *dest = source_data ; dest < &source_data [c_width * c_height * 3] ; ++dest)
{
*dest = v++ / 3;
}
LONGLONG
totals [2] = {0, 0};
for (int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; ++i)
{
cout << "Iteration: " << i << endl;
totals [0] += TimeFunction (SimpleTest, "Initial Copy", source_data, rgb, bw);
totals [1] += TimeFunction ( ASM, " ASM Copy", source_data, rgb, bw);
}
LARGE_INTEGER
freq;
QueryPerformanceFrequency (&freq);
freq.QuadPart /= 100000;
cout << totals [0] / freq.QuadPart << "ns" << endl;
cout << totals [1] / freq.QuadPart << "ns" << endl;
delete [] bw;
delete [] rgb;
delete [] source_data;
return 0;
}
And the ratio between C and assembler I was getting was about 2.5:1, i.e. C was 2.5 times the time of the assembler version.
I've just noticed the original data was in BGR order. If the copy swapped the B and R components then it does make the assembler code a bit more complex. But it would also make the C code more complex too.
Ideally, you need to work out what the theoretical minimum time is and compare it to what you're actually getting. To do that, you need to know the memory frequency and the type of memory and the workings of the CPU's MMU.
You might try using a simple cast to get your RGB data, and just recompute the grayscale data:
#pragma pack(1)
typedef unsigned char bw_t;
typedef struct {
unsigned char blue;
unsigned char green;
unsigned char red;
} rgb_t;
#pragma pack(pop)
rgb_t *imageRGB = (rgb_t*)pImage;
bw_t *imageBW = (bw_t*)calloc(640*480, sizeof(bw_t));
// RGB(X,Y) = imageRGB[Y*480 + X]
// BW(X,Y) = imageBW[Y*480 + X]
for (int y = 0; y < 640; ++y)
{
// try and pull some larger number of bytes from pImage (24 is arbitrary)
// 24 / sizeof(rgb_t) = 8
for (int x = 0; x < 480; x += 24)
{
imageBW[y*480 + x ] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x ]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 1] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 1]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 2] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 2]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 3] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 3]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 4] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 4]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 5] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 5]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 6] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 6]);
imageBW[y*480 + x + 7] = GRAYSCALE(imageRGB[y*480 + x + 7]);
}
}
Several steps you can take. Result at the end of this answer.
First, use pointers.
const unsigned char *pImage;
RGB *rgbOut = imgRGB;
unsigned char *bwOut = imgBW;
for (int y=0; y < 640; ++y) {
for (int x=0; x < 480; ++x) {
rgbOut->blue = *pImage;
++pImage;
unsigned char tmp = *pImage; // Save to reduce amount of reads.
rgbOut->green = tmp;
*bwOut = tmp;
++pImage;
rgbOut->red = *pImage;
++pImage;
++rgbOut;
++bwOut;
}
}
If imgRGB and imgBW are declared as:
unsigned char imgBW[480][640];
RGB imgRGB[480][640];
You can combine the two loops:
const unsigned char *pImage;
RGB *rgbOut = imgRGB;
unsigned char *bwOut = imgBW;
for (int i=0; i < 640 * 480; ++i) {
rgbOut->blue = *pImage;
++pImage;
unsigned char tmp = *pImage; // Save to reduce amount of reads.
rgbOut->green = tmp;
*bwOut = tmp;
++pImage;
rgbOut->red = *pImage;
++pImage;
++rgbOut;
++bwOut;
}
You can exploit the fact that word reads are faster than four char reads. We will use a helper macro for this. Note this example assumes a little-endian target system.
const unsigned char *pImage;
RGB *rgbOut = imgRGB;
unsigned char *bwOut = imgBW;
const uint32_t *curPixelGroup = pImage;
for (int i=0; i < 640 * 480; ++i) {
uint64_t pixels = 0;
#define WRITE_PIXEL \
rgbOut->blue = pixels; \
pixels >>= 8; \
\
rgbOut->green = pixels; \
*bwOut = pixels; \
pixels >>= 8; \
\
rgbOut->red = pixels; \
pixels >>= 8; \
\
++rgbOut; \
++bwOut;
#define READ_PIXEL(shift) \
pixels |= (*curPixelGroup++) << (shift * 8);
READ_PIXEL(0); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(1); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(2); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(3); WRITE_PIXEL;
/* Remaining */ WRITE_PIXEL;
#undef COPY_PIXELS
}
(Your compiler will probably optimize away the redundant or operation in the first READ_PIXEL. It will also optimize shifts, removing the redundant << 0, too.)
If the structure of RGB is thus:
struct RGB {
unsigned char blue, green, red;
};
You can optimize even further, copy to the struct directly, instead of through its members (red, green, blue). This can be done using anonymous structs (or casting, but that makes the code a bit more messy and probably more prone to error). (Again, this is dependant on little-endian systems, etc. etc.):
union RGB {
struct {
unsigned char blue, green, red;
};
uint32_t rgb:24; // Make sure it's a bitfield, otherwise the union will strech and ruin the ++ operator.
};
const unsigned char *pImage;
RGB *rgbOut = imgRGB;
unsigned char *bwOut = imgBW;
const uint32_t *curPixelGroup = pImage;
for (int i=0; i < 640 * 480; ++i) {
uint64_t pixels = 0;
#define WRITE_PIXEL \
rgbOut->rgb = pixels; \
pixels >>= 8; \
\
*bwOut = pixels; \
pixels >>= 16; \
\
++rgbOut; \
++bwOut;
#define READ_PIXEL(shift) \
pixels |= (*curPixelGroup++) << (shift * 8);
READ_PIXEL(0); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(1); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(2); WRITE_PIXEL;
READ_PIXEL(3); WRITE_PIXEL;
/* Remaining */ WRITE_PIXEL;
#undef COPY_PIXELS
}
You can optimize writing the pixel similarly as we did with reading (writing in words rather than 24-bits). In fact, that'd be a pretty good idea, and will be a great next step in optimization. Too tired to code it, though. =]
Of course, you can write the routine in assembly language. This makes it less portable than it already is, however.
I'm assuming the following at the moment, so please let me know if my assumptions are wrong:
a) imgRGB is a structure of the type
struct ImgRGB
{
unsigned char blue;
unsigned char green;
unsigned char red;
};
or at least something similar.
b) imgBW looks something like this:
struct ImgBW
{
unsigned char BW;
};
c) The code is single threaded
Assuming the above, I see several problems with your code:
You put the assignment to the BW part right in the middle of the assignments to the other containers. If you're working on a modern CPU, chances are that with the size of your data your L1 cache gets invalidated every time you're switching containers and you're looking at reloading or switching a cache line. Caches are optimised for linear access these days so hopping to and fro doesn't help. Accessing main memory is a lot slower, so that would be a noticeable performance hit. To verify if this is a problem, temporarily I'd remove the assignment to imgBW and measure if there is a noticeable speedup.
The array access doesn't help and it'll potentially slow down the code a little, although a decent optimiser should take care of that. I'd probably write the loop along these lines instead, but would not expect a big performance gain. Maybe a couple percent.
for (int y=0; y blue = *pImage;
...
}
}
For consistency I would change from using postfix to prefix increment but I would not expect to see a big gain.
If you can waste a little storage (well, 25%) you might gain from adding a fourth dummy unsigned char to the structure ImgRGB provided that this would increase the size of the structure to the size of an int. Native ints are usually fastest to access and if you're looking at a structure of chars that are not filling up an int completely, you're potentially running into all sorts of interesting access issues that can slow your code down noticeably because the compiler might have to generate additional instructions to extract the unsigned chars. Again, try this and measure the result - it might make a noticeable difference or none at all. In the same vein, upping the size of the structure members from unsigned char to unsigned int might waste lots of space but potentially can speed up the code. Nevertheless as long as pImage is a pointer to an unsigned char, you would only eliminate half the problem.
All in all you are down to making your loop fit to your underlying hardware, so for specific optimisation techniques you might have to read up on what your hardware does well and what it does badly.
Make sure pImage, imgRGB, and imgBW are marked __restrict.
Use SSE and do it sixteen bytes at a time.
Actually from what you're doing there it looks like you could use a simple memcpy() to copy pImage into imgRGB (since imgRGB is in row-major format and apparently in the same order as pImage). You could fill out imgBW by using a series of SSE swizzle and store ops to pack down the green values but it might be cumbersome since you'd need to work on ( 3*16 =) 48 bytes at a time.
Are you sure pImage and your output arrays are all in dcache when you start this? Try using a prefetch hint to fetch 128 bytes ahead and measure to see if that improves things.
Edit If you're not on x86, replace "SSE" with the appropriate SIMD instruction set for your hardware, of course. (That'd be VMX, Altivec, SPU, VLIW, HLSL, etc.)
If possible, fix this at a higher level then bit or instruction twiddling!
You could specialize the the B&W image class to one that references the green channel of the color image class (thus saving a copy per pixel). If you always create them in pair, you might not even need the naive imgBW class at all.
By taking care about how your store the data in imgRGB, you could copy a triplet at a time from the input data. Better, you might copy the whole thing, or even just store a reference (which makes the previous suggestion easy as well).
If you don't control the implementation of everything here, you might be stuck, then:
Last resort: unroll the loop (cue someone mentioning Duff's device, or just ask the compiler to do it for you...), though I don't think you'll see much improvement...
It seems that you defined each pixel as some kind of structure or object. Using a primitive type (say, int) could be faster. As others have mentioned, the compiler is likely to optimize the array access using pointer increments. If the compile doesn't do that for you, you can do that yourself to avoid multiplications when you use array[][].
Since you only need 3 bytes per pixel, you could pack one pixel into one int. By doing that, you could copy 3 bytes a time instead of byte-by-byte. The only tricky thing is when you want to read individual color components of a pixel, you will need some bit masking and shifting. This could give you more overhead than that saved by using an int.
Or you can use 3 int arrays for 3 color components respectively. You will need a lot more storage, though.
Here is one very tiny, very simple optimization:
You are referring to imageRGB[y][x] repeatedly, and that likely needs to be re-calculated at each step.
Instead, calculate it once, and see if that makes some improvement:
Pixel* apixel;
for (int y=0; y < 640; y++) {
for (int x=0; x < 480; x++) {
apixel = &imgRGB[y][x];
apixel->blue = *pImage;
pImage++;
apixel->green = *pImage;
imgBW[y][x] = *pImage;
pImage++;
apixel->red = *pImage;
pImage++;
}
}
If pImage is already entirely in memory, why do you need to massage the data? I mean if it is already in pseudo-RGB format, why can't you just write some inline routines/macros that can spit out the values on demand instead of copying it around?
If rearranging the pixel data is important for later operations, consider block operations and/or cache line optimization.