[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Disable compile-time tablegen for cbrt if total cycle count < 200000
Ronald S. Bultje
rsbultje at gmail.com
Sat Jan 2 22:10:54 CET 2016
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>
> > Hi,
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu>
> >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Motivated by a remark by Ronald:
> >> > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-January/186200.html,
> >> > this is a request for comment on disabling compile time tablegen for
> >> > cbrt if the total cycle count < 200000. Note that cbrt tables are only
> >> > used in aacdec.
> >> To start some effort towards a more principled understanding of the
> >> costs of runtime table initialization, I did some benchmarks.
> >> Note: I am not familiar with avcodec, so I don't know if this reflects
> >> correctly the static vs dynamic cost.
> >> file: ~/samples/aac/al04_44.mp4
> >> stream_loop: 100
> >> number of calls of avcodec_decode_audio4: 35956
> >> cost per call (avcodec_decode_audio4):
> >> 834030 decicycles in decode_audio4, 1 runs, 0 skips
> >> 556200 decicycles in decode_audio4, 2 runs, 0 skips
> >> [...]
> >> 177365 decicycles in decode_audio4, 16384 runs, 0 skips
> >> 177059 decicycles in decode_audio4, 32768 runs, 0 skips
> >> decoding cost: 17706*35956 = 636,636,936 cycles
> >> duration: 832.55 seconds
> >> cost per second of audio: 764,683 cycles
> >> cost of table init: 200,000 cycles
> >> fraction: 0.26
> >> So in a clip of n seconds duration, the relative overhead of dynamic
> >> initialization of these cbrt tables is 0.26/n. For a more concrete
> >> number, say a clip is of 180 seconds duration, then the overhead is
> >> 0.26/180 = 0.15%.
> > What if I only want to play the first 3 second of 1000 clips by calling
> > ffmpeg.exe in a shell script? E.g. for fingerprinting. The number of use
> > cases you cover needs to be more than just playback, ffmpeg can do much
> > than just that.
> Two remarks:
> 1. As I said, this was only a start of the discussion; and the general
> c/t decay holds; constant c should be close to what I obtained. So
> yes, if you have such a thing, it will be slower.
> 2. I thought ffmpeg had the ability to handle multiple input files in
> a single invocation? Thus, someone doing such a thing is IMHO doing it
ffmpeg has a lot of abilities. But most of our users are not harvard (or
MIT :-) ) PhDs, so they're unlikely to do it in the most optimal way, and
very likely to do it in the easiest way.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel