On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 00:51:17 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:12:24AM +0200, wm4 wrote: > > > As well as benchmark results in some commits like > > > 4302a92835313000d4bf8030baae32c2b130d8a1 > > > > avcodec/pcm: Better min_size for ff_alloc_packet2() > > > > 33318 -> 30601 decicycles > > > > That doesn't look convincing at all. So you save ~3000 decicycles for > > a task that isn't CPU bound, but which might blocks entire milliseconds > > on I/O. > > There was a bug report of a overall (aka time ffmpeg) speedloss > in the % values with high res rawvideo Was it fixed? > > > i do intend to fine tune this for more codecs but i spend more time > > > in such disussions than working on the code and having people tell me > > > to do it differently each time i take a step kind of slows it down > > > and turns it into a mess > > > > We also must take care of not turning the codebase into a mess. > > I want to fix the mess I don't mind, but... > and i would suggest that we first test if any / which encoders benefit > from the static buffer. > It where quite a few long ago but it seems from a few quick tests that > this is not so anymore. > Can someone confirm ? > if it has become useless then I could drop quite a bit of code Do you have to do your experiments on the live codebase? If you just want to try something, you could do that in a branch. If it gives good results, merge, if not, it's a failed experiment. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel