Bilateral speedup#766
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Replace per-pixel Vec allocations in weighted_average with fixed-size stack arrays, and replace itertools cartesian_product with plain nested for loops.
Contributor
|
could you please add unit-tests (or better proptests) to check that the error of fast_exp is less than 4%? |
Contributor
Author
See changes here: c0bbe01 I tested all negative f32 values until -87 where |
cospectrum
requested changes
Apr 15, 2026
b9995e3 to
416f71a
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At <dayjob> we noticed a pretty serious regression in performance in the bilateral filter when upgrading from 0.25 to 0.26. So I worked on speeding it up.
Not allocating more than necessary is by far the most significant improvement. The
cartesian_producthelper has some noticeable overhead (10s of ms). I also tried a well-known approximation for theexp(), I'm a little more skeptical of adding that one though. LMK