| Decoder/Config | Avg. of Averages | Avg. of Medians | Avg. Stddev | Avg. Stddev (%) | Avg. Stddev Sans First | |----------------|------------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|-------------------------| | **FFmpeg SW** | 9.77 | 9.41 | 0.61 | 6.52% | 0.67 | Okay, when using FFmpeg SW, the result is closer to the perf test on CI. As the test is using the canvas, I suppose capturing the hw buffer costs more time? If that is true, that could explain why using SW is way faster than HW. However, in the real world situation, we don't need to convert the HW buffer and show them into the canvas. The measurement for SW doesn't seem very useful. Andrew, could you provide your thought here as well? I would say this is not a real regression, it's just because of the difference between the SW and HW buffer. Thanks! --- * FFmpeg SW | Average | Median | Stddev | Stddev (%) | Stddev Sans First | Values | |---------|--------|--------|-------------|--------------------|-------------------------------| | 9.59 | 9.64 | 0.33 | 3.4% | 0.35 | 9.8, 9.1, 9.6, 9.4, 10.0 | | 10.07 | 9.37 | 0.76 | 8.1% | 0.82 | 9.6, 9.4, 9.7, 11.2, 10.4 | | 9.78 | 9.50 | 0.67 | 7.1% | 0.68 | 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.5, 10.9 | | 9.68 | 9.35 | 0.43 | 4.6% | 0.50 | 9.7, 9.3, 9.2, 9.9, 10.3 | | 9.73 | 9.20 | 0.86 | 9.4% | 1.00 | 9.8, 8.9, 9.6, 11.1, 9.2 |
Bug 1956880 Comment 6 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
| Decoder/Config | Avg. of Averages | Avg. of Medians | Avg. Stddev | Avg. Stddev (%) | Avg. Stddev Sans First | |----------------|------------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|-------------------------| | **FFmpeg SW** | 9.77 | 9.41 | 0.61 | 6.52% | 0.67 | Okay, when using FFmpeg SW, the result is closer to the perf test on CI. As the test is using the canvas, I suppose capturing the hw buffer costs more time? If that is true, that could explain why using SW is way faster than HW. Andrew, could you provide your thought here as well? I would say this is not a real regression, it's just because of the difference between the SW and HW buffer. Maybe we should have both measurement for HW and SW? Thanks! --- * FFmpeg SW | Average | Median | Stddev | Stddev (%) | Stddev Sans First | Values | |---------|--------|--------|-------------|--------------------|-------------------------------| | 9.59 | 9.64 | 0.33 | 3.4% | 0.35 | 9.8, 9.1, 9.6, 9.4, 10.0 | | 10.07 | 9.37 | 0.76 | 8.1% | 0.82 | 9.6, 9.4, 9.7, 11.2, 10.4 | | 9.78 | 9.50 | 0.67 | 7.1% | 0.68 | 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.5, 10.9 | | 9.68 | 9.35 | 0.43 | 4.6% | 0.50 | 9.7, 9.3, 9.2, 9.9, 10.3 | | 9.73 | 9.20 | 0.86 | 9.4% | 1.00 | 9.8, 8.9, 9.6, 11.1, 9.2 |
| Decoder/Config | Avg. of Averages | Avg. of Medians | Avg. Stddev | Avg. Stddev (%) | Avg. Stddev Sans First | |----------------|------------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|-------------------------| | **FFmpeg SW** | 9.77 | 9.41 | 0.61 | 6.52% | 0.67 | Okay, when using FFmpeg SW, the result is closer to the perf test on CI. As the test is using the canvas, I suppose capturing the hw buffer costs more time? If that is true, that could explain why using SW is way faster than HW. Andrew, could you provide your thought here as well? This is not a real regression, it's just because of the difference between the SW and HW buffer. Maybe we should have both measurement for HW and SW? Thanks! --- * FFmpeg SW | Average | Median | Stddev | Stddev (%) | Stddev Sans First | Values | |---------|--------|--------|-------------|--------------------|-------------------------------| | 9.59 | 9.64 | 0.33 | 3.4% | 0.35 | 9.8, 9.1, 9.6, 9.4, 10.0 | | 10.07 | 9.37 | 0.76 | 8.1% | 0.82 | 9.6, 9.4, 9.7, 11.2, 10.4 | | 9.78 | 9.50 | 0.67 | 7.1% | 0.68 | 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.5, 10.9 | | 9.68 | 9.35 | 0.43 | 4.6% | 0.50 | 9.7, 9.3, 9.2, 9.9, 10.3 | | 9.73 | 9.20 | 0.86 | 9.4% | 1.00 | 9.8, 8.9, 9.6, 11.1, 9.2 |
| Decoder/Config | Avg. of Averages | Avg. of Medians | Avg. Stddev | Avg. Stddev (%) | Avg. Stddev Sans First | |----------------|------------------|------------------|--------------|------------------|-------------------------| | **FFmpeg SW** | 9.77 | 9.41 | 0.61 | 6.52% | 0.67 | Okay, when using FFmpeg SW, the result is closer to the perf test on CI. As the test is using the canvas, I suppose capturing the hw buffer costs more time? If that is true, that could explain why using SW is way faster than HW. Andrew, could you provide your thought here as well? This is not a real regression, it's just because of the difference between the SW and HW buffer. Maybe we should have both measurements for HW and SW? Thanks! --- * FFmpeg SW | Average | Median | Stddev | Stddev (%) | Stddev Sans First | Values | |---------|--------|--------|-------------|--------------------|-------------------------------| | 9.59 | 9.64 | 0.33 | 3.4% | 0.35 | 9.8, 9.1, 9.6, 9.4, 10.0 | | 10.07 | 9.37 | 0.76 | 8.1% | 0.82 | 9.6, 9.4, 9.7, 11.2, 10.4 | | 9.78 | 9.50 | 0.67 | 7.1% | 0.68 | 9.2, 9.6, 9.7, 9.5, 10.9 | | 9.68 | 9.35 | 0.43 | 4.6% | 0.50 | 9.7, 9.3, 9.2, 9.9, 10.3 | | 9.73 | 9.20 | 0.86 | 9.4% | 1.00 | 9.8, 8.9, 9.6, 11.1, 9.2 |