On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 05:46:25PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 3:09 AM Michael Niedermayer > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 07:28:08PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > > > With fixed alignment requirements. > > > > > rematrix.c | 54 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > swresample.c | 5 ++++ > > > swresample_internal.h | 2 + > > > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > 3b99c9eb2e2f1f17d1f306e37ddd7107405fede4 > > 0001-swresample-reuse-DSP-functions-from-avutil.patch > > > From 771bc1414b737475bc42c7263fd7f21b4d9cc9b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Paul B Mahol > > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 15:41:01 +0200 > > > Subject: [PATCH] swresample: reuse DSP functions from avutil > > > > > > Improves generic mixing dramatically. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol > > > --- > > > libswresample/rematrix.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > libswresample/swresample.c | 5 +++ > > > libswresample/swresample_internal.h | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/libswresample/rematrix.c b/libswresample/rematrix.c > > > index 79e8a43eac..2133b0f90d 100644 > > > --- a/libswresample/rematrix.c > > > +++ b/libswresample/rematrix.c > > > @@ -652,7 +652,32 @@ int swri_rematrix(SwrContext *s, AudioData *out, > > AudioData *in, int len, int mus > > > break;} > > > default: > > > if(s->int_sample_fmt == AV_SAMPLE_FMT_FLTP){ > > > - for(i=0; i > > + if (out->planar && in->planar) > > > + len1 = len & ~15; > > > + else > > > + len1 = 0; > > > + if ((intptr_t)out->ch[out_i] & 0x1f) > > > + len1 = 0; > > > + for (j = 0; j < s->matrix_ch[out_i][0] && len1 > 0; > > j++) { > > > + in_i = s->matrix_ch[out_i][1+j]; > > > + if ((intptr_t)in->ch[in_i] & 0x1f) { > > > + len1 = 0; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > Cant this be done outside the "inner" loop ? > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > also this produces some new NaN values > > > > @@ -91810,16 +91810,16 @@ > > [e:0.246031 c:-nan max:0.988908] len: 936 > > [e:0.247006 c:-nan max:0.988908] len: 936 > > [e:0.247174 c:-nan max:0.988908] len: 936 > > -[e:0.197683 c:0.773693 max:0.825360] len: 936 > > -[e:0.192089 c:0.814010 max:0.820662] len: 936 > > +[e:0.245992 c:0.031094 max:0.988908] len: 936 > > +[e:0.246535 c:0.031025 max:0.988908] len: 936 > > [e:0.013306 c:0.996638 max:0.037320] len: 32 F: 2 > > [e:0.049179 c:0.909927 max:0.081071] len: 32 F: 2 > > [e:0.159079 c:-nan max:0.299026] len: 32 F: 2 > > [e:0.116819 c:-nan max:0.297598] len: 32 F: 2 > > [e:0.159382 c:-nan max:0.299980] len: 32 F: 2 > > [e:0.115993 c:-nan max:0.296648] len: 32 F: 2 > > -[e:0.099115 c:0.996999 max:0.189015] len: 32 F: 2 > > -[e:0.071657 c:0.998728 max:0.187209] len: 32 F: 2 > > +[e:0.159577 c:-nan max:0.299503] len: 32 F: 2 > > +[e:0.115367 c:-nan max:0.299503] len: 32 F: 2 > > > > > Is that really important to you? The important part is not what the tool displays. But that this points to a worsening of the tested code (or a bug in the tool) The other numbers also seem to worsen by non trivial amounts Thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Asymptotically faster algorithms should always be preferred if you have asymptotical amounts of data