This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Vadim Yanitskiy axilirator at gmail.com> 1) Extend your code with encoding capabilities. Ah, I just found it inside your repository. With best regards, Vadim Yanitskiy. 2016-10-14 17:40 GMT+07:00 Vadim Yanitskiy <axilirator at gmail.com>: > Hi Tom, > > Thank you for explainations! > > > Potential Viterbi optimization using SIMD methods is substantial as I > > demonstrated many years ago. The implementation does require > > separation of puncturing and Viterbi. Unfortunately, the has code > > experienced code rot since then. Admittedly, I accept much of that > > blame. > > I think it would be really good to have/use your Viterbi implementation > inside the libosmocoding. Regarding to some remarks to your code, I am > ready to fix them (such as malloc -> talloc). > > Moreover, recently I had a conversation with Alexander Chemeris. He also > mentioned your implementation, which would be better to use in embedded > platforms (such as UmSITE) due to performance reasons. > > > In summary, my concern is about the implementation and not the API. > > Perhaps we could pull the puncturing into the library as Max suggests. > > Then, separately, consider performance changes to the internal > > puncturing and Viterbi implementations. > > So, my suggestion is to: > > 1) Extend your code with encoding capabilities. > 2) Merge Viterbi transcoder with the libosmocoding. > 3) Merge libosmocoding into libosmocore as a sub-library > or spawn a separate repository. > > Any opinions? > > > With best regards, > Vadim Yanitskiy. > > 2016-10-13 1:54 GMT+07:00 Tom Tsou <tom at tsou.cc>: > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Max <msuraev at sysmocom.de> wrote: >> > Is there some microbenchmark available? Perhaps we can use it to improve >> > generated code? >> >> Potential Viterbi optimization using SIMD methods is substantial as I >> demonstrated many years ago. The implementation does require >> separation of puncturing and Viterbi. Unfortunately, the has code >> experienced code rot since then. Admittedly, I accept much of that >> blame. >> >> ================================================= >> [+] Testing: GSM TCH/AFS 6.7 >> [.] Specs: (N=4, K=5, recursive, flushed, punctured) >> [.] Input length : ret = 140 exp = 140 -> OK >> [.] Output length : ret = 448 exp = 448 -> OK >> >> [.] Performance benchmark: >> [..] Encoding / Decoding 800000 bursts on 8 thread(s): >> [..] Testing base: >> [..] Elapsed time....................... 4.320001 secs >> [..] Rate............................... 25.925920 Mbps >> [..] Testing SIMD: >> [..] Elapsed time....................... 0.458272 secs >> [..] Rate............................... 244.396341 Mbps >> [..] Speedup............................ 9.426718 >> >> http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/2014-April/007365.html >> >> -TT >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/openbsc/attachments/20161014/50c80092/attachment.htm>