On 03/09/17 17:54, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > On 09/03/2017 02:27 AM, Mark Thompson wrote: >>> +/* in ffmpeg there is a single thread could be queueing/dequeuing buffers >>> so a >>> + * timeout is * required when retrieving a frame in case the driver has >>> not received >>> + * enough input * to start generating output. >>> + * >>> + * once decoding starts, the timeout should not be hit. >> This seems like it could introduce a significant delay on startup for no >> good reason. Can you instead just queue packets until either you run out of >> input buffers or a nonblocking dequeue succeeds? >> >> (I might need to think more about how the semantics of this work.) >> > > if the decoder needs 4 blocks, the delay is 200ms, if it is 10 blocks, that > is 500ms which doesn't seem too significant? when I test I barely notice the > difference with respect to using the h264 codec (or any of the others in fact) > > the best solution would be to be able to block until the capture queue has > frames ready but for that we would need another thread inputting > independently on the other queue...does ffmpeg allow for this? separate > threads for input and output?
Since the API is nonblocking, you can just return EAGAIN from receive_frame if there are any free buffers (to request more input). You would then only block waiting for output if there is no more input (end of stream) or there aren't any free buffers (so no more input could be accepted). Ideally there would then be no timeouts at all except in error cases. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
