if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
s16ne/s16re.
Signed-off-by: Wang Xingchao
---
src/pulsecore/svolume_c.c | 70 +
1 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Hi all,
I didnot touch much formats optermization, only for most used
s16nr/re, please help review whether the idea is acceptable. If so, i
will take the responsbility for all formats.
--xingchao
2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
> do volume c
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 12:24 +0300, Wang Xingchao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I didnot touch much formats optermization, only for most used
> s16nr/re, please help review whether the idea is acceptable. If so, i
> will take the responsbility for all formats.
Have you measured the performance with and wit
> 2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
>> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
>> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
>> s16ne/s16re.
I did some work to optimize svolume already, see my branch on github:
https://github.com/mkbosmans/pulseaudio/compare/master..
2011/10/18 Maarten Bosmans :
>> 2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
>>> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
>>> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
>>> s16ne/s16re.
>
> I did some work to optimize svolume already, see my branch on github:
> https://github.com
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 14:49 +0300, Wang Xingchao wrote:
> Tanu, i've not done much performance test, do you have some tools for
> svolume test? All suggestions are appreciated.
No, I don't know any particular tools. I was asking just because I don't
think the patches can be merged before there is
2011/10/18 Tanu Kaskinen :
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 14:49 +0300, Wang Xingchao wrote:
>> Tanu, i've not done much performance test, do you have some tools for
>> svolume test? All suggestions are appreciated.
>
> No, I don't know any particular tools. I was asking just because I don't
> think the pa
hi,
I got not stable results, which means the optimization is not as good
as expected.
All results based on plain c volume function, not touch sse part.
All tests are for format s16ne.
Result1: channels 4, with same volume, with patch; samples 1021, loop 1000;
Result2: channels 4, with same volu
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:10:06PM +0800, Maarten Bosmans wrote:
> > 2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
> >> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
> >> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
> >> s16ne/s16re.
>
> I did some work to optimize svolume already, see
2011/10/19 Lu Guanqun :
> Hi Maarten,
>
> Thanks for your nice work, I'll take a look.
>
> According to my test here, it seems soft volume processing doesn't cost
> CPU usage too much, instead, it's the resampling that takes much CPU
> usage. e.g. one sink input, resampler of speex-float-3 is used,
2011/10/19 Wang Xingchao :
> hi,
>
> I got not stable results, which means the optimization is not as good
> as expected.
> All results based on plain c volume function, not touch sse part.
It's good to test your optimizations. Be sure to also test with
various lengths of the memblock (1021 below)
> In general you can assume than these resamplers are already as
> optimized as possible. Especially for our default speex resampler, I
> don't expect there's a lot to gain. But if you'd like you could work
> with that project to see if there are improvements possible. Last week
> I sent some patch
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:09 -0400, Wang Xingchao wrote:
> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
> s16ne/s16re.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xingchao
> ---
As Tanu points out, some hard data here would be good. But ju
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 12:10 +0200, Maarten Bosmans wrote:
> > 2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
> >> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
> >> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
> >> s16ne/s16re.
[...]
> The Orc svolume implementation currently only handles
2011/10/20 Arun Raghavan :
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 12:10 +0200, Maarten Bosmans wrote:
>> > 2011/10/18 Wang Xingchao :
>> >> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
>> >> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
>> >> s16ne/s16re.
> [...]
>> The Orc svolume i
2011/10/20 Arun Raghavan :
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 17:09 -0400, Wang Xingchao wrote:
>> if all channels have same volume setting, use fast way to
>> do volume change. this patch intended to work for two formats:
>> s16ne/s16re.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Xingchao
>> ---
>
> As Tanu points out, some
Hey Maarten,
I checked some code of your branch, thanks you have done so much work
in svolume part. And especially svolume-test is really very powerful
and worth for try. i decide to use it as the tool to check whether the
optimization is correct.
meanwhile, i met some compile error in branch rem
'Twas brillig, and Wang Xingchao at 20/10/11 08:51 did gyre and gimble:
> CC libpulsecommon_UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN_la-client-conf.lo
> CC libpulsecommon_UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN_la-fork-detect.lo
> CC libpulsecommon_UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN_la-xmalloc.lo
> CC libpulsecommon_UNKNOWN.UNKNOWN_la-propli
> I've a funny feeling that this is caused by an old checkout/clone
> This file was moved a long time ago, is it possible you've just not done
> a "make distclean" for a while or were working of a 0.9.x branch previously?
hey Col,
i checkout remote branch "remotes/origin/orcify" after clone f
Hey Maarten,
with your test tool svolume-test, i get some new test results shows
the patch has a positive performance improvement. please note i made
some little change in svolume-test to disable "testing correctness"
part, this save some time, the goal is to find out performance
difference with f
20 matches
Mail list logo
