Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(1130)

Unified Diff: media/video/h264_poc.cc

Issue 2661423002: VTVDA: Optimize pic_order_cnt_type == 2. (Closed)
Patch Set: Change POC of MMCO5 frame to 0. Created 3 years, 11 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
« media/video/h264_poc.h ('K') | « media/video/h264_poc.h ('k') | no next file » | no next file with comments »
Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Show Comments Hide Comments ('s')
Index: media/video/h264_poc.cc
diff --git a/media/video/h264_poc.cc b/media/video/h264_poc.cc
index cfa91057e4490a63399da198204e15bcad6fb731..a171344c756e5010cbedbc9ec9985a6e88ccb145 100644
--- a/media/video/h264_poc.cc
+++ b/media/video/h264_poc.cc
@@ -13,25 +13,11 @@
namespace media {
-H264POC::H264POC() {
- Reset();
-}
-
-H264POC::~H264POC() {
-}
-
-void H264POC::Reset() {
- // It shouldn't be necessary to reset these values, but doing so will improve
- // reproducibility for buggy streams.
- ref_pic_order_cnt_msb_ = 0;
- ref_pic_order_cnt_lsb_ = 0;
- prev_frame_num_ = 0;
- prev_frame_num_offset_ = 0;
-}
+namespace {
// Check if a slice includes memory management control operation 5, which
// results in some |pic_order_cnt| state being cleared.
-static bool HasMMCO5(const media::H264SliceHeader& slice_hdr) {
+bool HasMMCO5(const media::H264SliceHeader& slice_hdr) {
// Require that the frame actually has memory management control operations.
if (slice_hdr.nal_ref_idc == 0 ||
slice_hdr.idr_pic_flag ||
@@ -53,6 +39,24 @@ static bool HasMMCO5(const media::H264SliceHeader& slice_hdr) {
return false;
}
+} // namespace
+
+H264POC::H264POC() {
+ Reset();
+}
+
+H264POC::~H264POC() {}
+
+void H264POC::Reset() {
+ // It shouldn't be necessary to reset these values, but doing so will improve
+ // reproducibility for buggy streams.
+ ref_pic_order_cnt_msb_ = 0;
+ ref_pic_order_cnt_lsb_ = 0;
+ prev_frame_num_ = 0;
+ prev_frame_num_offset_ = 0;
+ pending_mmco5_ = false;
+}
+
bool H264POC::ComputePicOrderCnt(
const H264SPS* sps,
const H264SliceHeader& slice_hdr,
@@ -67,19 +71,14 @@ bool H264POC::ComputePicOrderCnt(
int32_t max_pic_order_cnt_lsb =
1 << (sps->log2_max_pic_order_cnt_lsb_minus4 + 4);
- // Note: Duplicate frame numbers are ignored. They occur in many videos
Pawel Osciak 2017/02/17 04:53:26 Should this first note be removed as well?
sandersd (OOO until July 31) 2017/02/18 00:46:34 Yes, it was just plain wrong. (Duplicate frame num
- // despite appearing to be invalid according to the spec.
- // TODO(sandersd): Check if these videos are using slices or have redundant
- // streams.
-
- // Note: Gaps in frame numbers are also ignored. They do not affect POC
- // computation.
-
// Based on T-REC-H.264 8.2.1, "Decoding process for picture order
// count", available from http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264.
//
// Reorganized slightly from spec pseudocode to handle MMCO5 when storing
// state instead of when loading it.
+ //
+ // Note: Gaps in frame numbers are ignored. They do not affect POC
+ // computation.
switch (sps->pic_order_cnt_type) {
case 0: {
int32_t prev_pic_order_cnt_msb = ref_pic_order_cnt_msb_;
@@ -111,9 +110,15 @@ bool H264POC::ComputePicOrderCnt(
// (assuming no interlacing).
int32_t top_foc = pic_order_cnt_msb + slice_hdr.pic_order_cnt_lsb;
int32_t bottom_foc = top_foc + slice_hdr.delta_pic_order_cnt_bottom;
- *pic_order_cnt = std::min(top_foc, bottom_foc);
+
+ // Compute POC.
Pawel Osciak 2017/02/17 04:53:26 Perhaps we could replace this comment with an expl
sandersd (OOO until July 31) 2017/02/22 01:39:32 Done. I went with something similar to what the he
+ if (mmco5)
+ *pic_order_cnt = 0;
+ else
+ *pic_order_cnt = std::min(top_foc, bottom_foc);
// Store state.
+ pending_mmco5_ = mmco5;
prev_frame_num_ = slice_hdr.frame_num;
if (slice_hdr.nal_ref_idc != 0) {
if (mmco5) {
@@ -180,13 +185,20 @@ bool H264POC::ComputePicOrderCnt(
int32_t top_foc = expected_pic_order_cnt + slice_hdr.delta_pic_order_cnt0;
int32_t bottom_foc = top_foc + sps->offset_for_top_to_bottom_field +
slice_hdr.delta_pic_order_cnt1;
- *pic_order_cnt = std::min(top_foc, bottom_foc);
+
+ // Compute POC.
+ if (mmco5)
+ *pic_order_cnt = 0;
+ else
+ *pic_order_cnt = std::min(top_foc, bottom_foc);
// Store state.
+ pending_mmco5_ = mmco5;
prev_frame_num_ = slice_hdr.frame_num;
- prev_frame_num_offset_ = frame_num_offset;
if (mmco5)
prev_frame_num_offset_ = 0;
+ else
+ prev_frame_num_offset_ = frame_num_offset;
break;
}
@@ -203,18 +215,27 @@ bool H264POC::ComputePicOrderCnt(
// 8-12, 8-13. Derive |temp_pic_order_count| (it's always the
// |pic_order_cnt|, regardless of interlacing).
+ int32_t temp_pic_order_count;
Pawel Osciak 2017/02/17 04:53:26 Perhaps we could say: if (mmco5) *pic_order_cnt
sandersd (OOO until July 31) 2017/02/18 00:46:34 I wrote it that way originally, but ended up switc
if (slice_hdr.idr_pic_flag)
- *pic_order_cnt = 0;
+ temp_pic_order_count = 0;
else if (slice_hdr.nal_ref_idc == 0)
- *pic_order_cnt = 2 * (frame_num_offset + slice_hdr.frame_num) - 1;
+ temp_pic_order_count = 2 * (frame_num_offset + slice_hdr.frame_num) - 1;
+ else
+ temp_pic_order_count = 2 * (frame_num_offset + slice_hdr.frame_num);
+
+ // Compute POC.
+ if (mmco5)
+ *pic_order_cnt = 0;
else
- *pic_order_cnt = 2 * (frame_num_offset + slice_hdr.frame_num);
+ *pic_order_cnt = temp_pic_order_count;
// Store state.
+ pending_mmco5_ = mmco5;
prev_frame_num_ = slice_hdr.frame_num;
- prev_frame_num_offset_ = frame_num_offset;
if (mmco5)
prev_frame_num_offset_ = 0;
+ else
+ prev_frame_num_offset_ = frame_num_offset;
break;
}
« media/video/h264_poc.h ('K') | « media/video/h264_poc.h ('k') | no next file » | no next file with comments »

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698