On 21/02/15 3:47 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 2/21/15, James Almer <jamr...@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. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
