[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/tak: reset filter buffers

Paul B Mahol onemda at gmail.com
Sun Feb 22 13:13:55 CET 2015


On 2/21/15, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/02/15 3:47 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> On 2/21/15, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/02/15 8:49 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>>>> Have you measured performance drop before and after?
>>>
>>> filter_order 8 in decorrelate()
>>>
>>> Before
>>> 903 decicycles in scalarproduct, 8388364 runs, 244 skips
>>> After
>>> 858 decicycles in scalarproduct, 8388215 runs, 393 skips
>>>
>>>
>>> filter_order 24 in decode_subframe()
>>>
>>> Before
>>> 993 decicycles in scalarproduct, 16776849 runs, 367 skips
>>> After
>>> 887 decicycles in scalarproduct, 16776783 runs, 433 skips
>>>
>>
>> But what about other filter orders?
>
> filter order 12 in decode_subframe()
>
> Before
> 963 decicycles in scalarproduct, 8388426 runs, 182 skips
> After
> 873 decicycles in scalarproduct, 8388410 runs, 198 skips
>
>
> filter_order 8 in decode_subframe()
>
> Before
> 900 decicycles in scalarproduct, 4194020 runs, 284 skips
> After
> 858 decicycles in scalarproduct, 4194198 runs, 106 skips
>
>
> filter order 4 in decode_subframe()
>
> Before
> 827 decicycles in scalarproduct, 1048561 runs, 15 skips
> After
> 876 decicycles in scalarproduct, 1048556 runs, 20 skips
>
>
> Seems like only filter_order 4 is slower. I could leave the C code for that
> one
> case if you prefer.

I'm more afraid of overhead that memset() does.

Feel free to apply patch.

> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list