[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] frame: Simplify the video allocation

[James Almer]

On 9/6/2018 7:26 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:10:31PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 9/4/2018 5:09 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:29:13AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2018 5:17 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 09:34:23PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>>>>> From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero at gentoo.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Merged-by: James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This is the next merge in the queue. It's a critical part of the AVFrame API,
>>>>>> so even if FATE passes I'd rather have others look at it and test in case
>>>>>> something breaks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only difference compared to the libav commit is the "32 - 1" padding per
>>>>>> plane when allocating the buffer, which was only in our tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> why is the STRIDE_ALIGN (which is a thing in units of bytes along the
>>>>> horizontal axis) added to padded_height which is vertical axis ?
>>>>> This is not done prior to the change
>>>>
>>>> The only way to keep this padding we currently have in the tree applied
>>>> to the buffer allocation for each plane like it was before the change
>>>> (Except it'll now be one continuous buffer instead of one per plane) is
>>>> by passing it alongside the height parameter to
>>>> av_image_fill_pointers(). The result is essentially the same.
>>>>
>>>> Do you want me to change the name of the variable, or remove it and pass
>>>> 32 - 1 to both av_image_fill_pointers() calls directly? Removing the
>>>> padding will probably just make whatever overreads prompted its addition
>>>> to resurface.
>>>> Alternatively, i can just no-op this merge and move on.
>>>
>>> allocating one plane instead of 3 is better obviously so i dont think this
>>> should be no-oped unless someone implements this differently
>>>
>>> i dont think the padding can be removed saftely but i might be missing something
>>> also i do not remember this 100%
>>>
>>> what i see and i may have misunderstood your reply but the code before places
>>> a few bytes between planes, the new code places a few lines, that is alot more
>>> space. Its not even the best that can be done with the current API. For example
>>> the number of extra lines would generally be 1 to provide sufficient padding
>>> at most reaslistic resolutions.
>>>
>>> also there is the independant question on the API, do we want/need to make 
>>> adding padding between planes easier?>
>>> actually i think that if we change from 31 bytes to X lines padding then this
>>> should be a commit seperate of the 3->1 change. This would make bisect much
>>> more meaningfull and its rather trivial to split this.
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion on how to choose how many lines of padding to
>> add? 
> 
> something like (with rounding up)
> bytes * horizontal_chroma_subsampling / width * vertical_chroma_subsampling

Isn't a calculation like this already being done?

> 
> 
>> And how would it be done? Just passing (h + padding_lines) to
>> av_buffer_alloc() pre merge, and to av_image_fill_pointers() post merge?
> 
> possible
> 
> 
>>
>> It would also be faster if you could commit that change instead.
> 
> thinking of this, its maybe simpler to adjust data[*] by these to get
> exactly teh same effect as before

Is this before or after the merge? Because after the merge it's
av_image_fill_pointers() who does all the work, and get_video_buffer()
has no control over the pointers.

Nothing about this is obvious to me, so i ask again if you could
implement this instead. Otherwise I'll just no-op the merge and add it
to the list of skipped changes in case someone else wants to give it a
try at some other time.

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