Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING OF RVC BASED MULTIMEDIA SPECIFICATIONSJunaid Jameel Ahmad1,3, Shujun Li2, Marco Mattavelli3
{Junaid.Ahmad, Marco.Mattavelli}@epfl.ch, [email protected] University of Konstanz, Germany, 2 University of Surrey, UK, 3 Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland
Financial Statements2009/10
Quick Questions and Answers
1. What is RVC (Reconfigurable Video Coding)?A dataflow programming framework standardized by ISO/IEC since 2009.
• ISO/IEC 23001-4 (MPEG-B Part 4), 2009 (1st Edition), 2011 (2nd Edi-tion) describes how to specify video codecs using three languages –RVC-CAL, FNL and RVC-BSDL.
• ISO/IEC 23002-4 (MPEG-C Part 4), 2010 (1st Edition) describes a li-brary of common tools used in MPEG video codecs.
2. What is an RVC specification?An implementation-agnostic description of a system specified by RVC.
3. What have you done in this work?We report performance benchmarking results of RVC-based C imple-mentations of an H.264/AVC intra codec and a JPEG codec and fourmultimedia security systems working with them.
4. How did you benchmark the performance of the RVC systems?By presenting a side-by-side comparison of the RVC-based implementa-tions against non-RVC reference implementations.
5. What are the main results you observed?
•RVC implementations have a performance similar to non-RVC ones.•On a dual-core machine we observed a performance gain up to 173%.
1. How does RVC work?
Development Environment: + Open RVC-CAL Compiler
Design Stage
Model Instantiation: Selection of FUs and
Parameter Assignment
Abstract Model(FNL + RVC CAL)
Tool Library 1(RVC-CAL Functional
Units (FUs))
Application Description(FU Network Description)Graphical FU
network editor, RVC-CAL editor, RVC simulator
Implementation Stage
(FNL + RVC-CAL)Tool Library 2
(RVC-CAL Functional Units FUs)
RVC simulator
Application ImplementationAutomatic code generation
to C/C++, Java, LLVM, VHDL/Verilog etc.
Tool Library 1 Implementation
Tool Library 2Implementation
Code generation tools
Input Data Application Solution Output Data
2. Benchmarked Systems
•RVC-based C implementations: specified manually in RVC by the RVCcommunity and C code automatically generated from the RVC specifica-tions by ORCC’s CAL2C backend.
•Non-RVC C implementations: JM (for H.264/AVC) and IJG (for JPEG),C code manually written/optimized/maintained.
Sign-bit encryption & decryption
3: JVEE & JVDD DC encryption & d i1
H.264/AVC codec
& decryption
2
4: JIEE & JIDD
6: JISE & JISDF5 steganographic
5: JIWE & JIWDDCT-based watermark
5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD5: JIWE & JIWD
2
JPEG codec
F5 steganographicembedder & detectorF5 steganographic
embedder & detectorDCT based watermark embedder & detector
3. Experimental Results
3.1 Run-time performance on a single-core machineH.264/AVC
JM−Encoder RVC−Encoder JM−JVEE RVC−JVEE0
50
100
150
H.264/AVC Implementations
Tim
e (s
econ
ds)
Foreman (QCIF) Highway (QCIF) Suzie (QCIF)
H.264/AVC based encoding implementations
JM−Decoder RVC−Decoder JM−JVDD RVC−JVDD0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
H.264/AVC Implementations
Tim
e (s
econ
ds)
Foreman (QCIF) Highway (QCIF) Suzie (QCIF)
H.264/AVC based decoding implementations
Test Video JM-JVEE JM-JVDD RVC-JVEE RVC-JVDD
Foreman 0.16% 2.77% 6.01% 6.73%
Highway 0.18% 2.41% 1.98% 6.55%
Suzie 0.17% 2.54% 2.25% 6.97%
0.16%
0.18%
0.17%
6.01%
1.98%
2.25%
2.77%
2.41%
2.54%
6.73%
6.55%
6.97%
Overheads of sign-bit encryption module
•RVC-based encoding implementa-tions are (> 100%) faster.
•RVC-based decoding implementa-tions are comparable to JM ones.
•RVC implementations suffer moreencryption/decryption overhead.
JPEG
IJG−Encoder RVC−Encoder IJG−JIEE RVC−JIWE IJG−JISE RVC−JISE0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
RVC−JIEE IJG−JIWE JPEG Implementations
Tim
e (m
illis
econ
ds)
airplane (512x512) Lena (512x512) yacht (512x480)
JPEG based encoding implementations
IJG−Decoder RVC−Decoder IJG−JIDD RVC−JIWD IJG−JISD RVC−JISD0
50
100
150
RVC−JIDD IJG−JIWD JPEG Implementations
Tim
e (m
illis
econ
ds)
airplane (512x512) Lena (512x512) yacht (512x480)
JPEG based decoding implementations
Test Image JIEE JIDD JIWE JIWD JISE JISD
RVC
airplane 7.02% 20.13% 13.67% 15.73% 26.46% 44.11%
Lena 6.06% 20.00% 5.60% 15.13% 24.50% 43.85%
Pepper 6.00% 21.59% 4.91% 14.09% 22.52% 43.52%
IJG
airplane 11.25% 11.55% 15.84% 18.50% 26.08% 31.12%
Lena 9.28% 12.50% 14.80% 17.66% 23.52% 30.11%
Pepper 11.13% 15.01% 16.85% 21.98% 27.77% 34.39%
7.02%
6.06%
6.00%
11.25%
9.28%
11.13%
13.67%
5.60%
4.91%
15.84%
14.80%
16.85%
26.46%
24.50%
22.52%
26.08%
23.52%
27.77%
20.13%
20.00%
21.59%
15.73%
15.13%
14.09%
44.11%
43.85%
43.52%
11.55%
12.50%
15.01%
18.50%
17.66%
21.98%
31.12%
30.11%
34.39%
Overheads of security modules
•RVC-based implementations areslower.
• JISE/JISD have the highest over-head due to image buffering.
3.2 Performance gain on a dual-core machine
Encoder JVDD100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
JVEE Decoder H.264/AVC Implementations
Per
form
ance
Gai
n (%
)
Foreman (QCIF)Highway (QCIF)Suzie (QCIF)
Encoder JIEE JIWE JIDD JIWD JISD90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
JISE Decoder JPEG Implementations
Per
form
ance
Gai
n (%
)
airplane (512x512)Lena (512x512)yacht (512x480)
Performance gain of H.264/AVC im-plementations:•Encoding implementations: 159% –
173%.•Decoding implementations: 110% –
119%.
Performance gain of JPEGimplementations:•Encoding implementations:
142% – 164%.•Decoding implementations:
127% – 148%.
ICIP 2013 – 20th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Melbourne, Australia, September 15-18, 2013.
