On 23/06/16 21:13, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Mark Thompson (2016-06-22 00:28:31) >> Previously we would allocate a new one for every frame. This instead >> maintains an AVBufferPool of them to use as-needed. >> >> Also makes the maximum size of an output buffer adapt to the frame >> size - the fixed upper bound was a bit too easy to hit when encoding >> large pictures at high quality. > > Looks ok. Does this have a measurable performance impact?
Not significant for normal streams; noticable but not large (a few fps) at high bitrates (with the buffers suitably bigger but still created/destroyed per-picture). I wrote this when pursuing why Skylake was so much slower than Haswell: actually it was Intel forgetting to turn on some caching <https://cgit.freedesktop.org/vaapi/intel-driver/commit/?id=dd9a0fb7a885f79f6413df0bd1afd5556c919a03>, but I think this approach to buffer handling is nicer anyway. Thanks, - Mark _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
