PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING OF RVC BASED MULTIMEDIA SPECIFICATIONS Junaid Jameel Ahmad 1,3 , Shujun Li 2 , Marco Mattavelli 3 {Junaid.Ahmad, Marco.Mattavelli}@epfl.ch, [email protected] 1 University of Konstanz, Germany, 2 University of Surrey, UK, 3 ´ Ecole Polytechnique F´ ed´ erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland 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 four multimedia 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 Implementation Automatic code generation to C/C++, Java, LLVM, VHDL/Verilog etc. Tool Library 1 Implementation Tool Library 2 Implementation Code generation tools Input Data Application Solution Output Data 2. Benchmarked Systems • RVC-based C implementations: specified manually in RVC by the RVC community 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 i 1 H.264/AVC codec & decryption 2 4: JIEE & JIDD 6: JISE & JISD F5 steganographic 5: JIWE & JIWD DCT -based watermark 2 JPEG codec F5 steganographic embedder & detector DCT based watermark embedder & detector 3. Experimental Results 3.1 Run-time performance on a single-core machine H.264/AVC JM−Encoder RVC−Encoder JM−JVEE RVC−JVEE 0 50 100 150 H.264/AVC Implementations Time (seconds) Foreman (QCIF) Highway (QCIF) Suzie (QCIF) H.264/AVC based encoding implementations JM−Decoder RVC−Decoder JM−JVDD RVC−JVDD 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 H.264/AVC Implementations Time (seconds) 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 more encryption/decryption overhead. JPEG IJG−Encoder RVC−Encoder IJG−JIEE RVC−JIWE IJG−JISE RVC−JISE 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 RVC−JIEE IJG−JIWE JPEG Implementations Time (milliseconds) airplane (512x512) Lena (512x512) yacht (512x480) JPEG based encoding implementations IJG−Decoder RVC−Decoder IJG−JIDD RVC−JIWD IJG−JISD RVC−JISD 0 50 100 150 RVC−JIDD IJG−JIWD JPEG Implementations Time (milliseconds) 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 are slower. • JISE/JISD have the highest over- head due to image buffering. 3.2 Performance gain on a dual-core machine Encoder JVDD 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 JVEE Decoder H.264/AVC Implementations Performance Gain (%) Foreman (QCIF) Highway (QCIF) Suzie (QCIF) Encoder JIEE JIWE JIDD JIWD JISD 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 JISE Decoder JPEG Implementations Performance Gain (%) 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 JPEG implementations: • Encoding implementations: 142% – 164%. • Decoding implementations: 127% – 148%. ICIP 2013 – 20th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Melbourne, Australia, September 15-18, 2013.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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.
Related Documents
