tune vpx threading

[totaam]

Issue migrated from trac ticket # 1851

component: encodings | priority: major | resolution: fixed

2018-05-22 07:39:28: antoine created the issue

---

Same as #1840 but for libvpx.

Some links:

• VP9 Video Encoder with Faster Turnaround: .. provides more details about the efficient multi-threading implementation that has enabled a 50-70% improvement in speed with no loss in quality
• Notes on encoding settings: Threads autodetection doesn't work with libvpx so you need to manually raise -threads value
• VP9 Encoder Gets Better Multi-Threading Performance: This has allowed over a 100% speed improvement for 720p/1080p videos with using more than four threads

It looks like part of the reason why vp8 and vp9 are now faster, and why I chose to use vpx more (see #832#comment:22) is that the threading improvements make it faster.
This does mean that reducing the threading might reduce the performance too much.

[totaam]

2018-05-22 07:43:45: antoine commented

---

You can choose the maximum number of threads with:

XPRA_VPX_THREADS=2 xpra start ...

We want to see how this affects frame latency, bandwidth, CPU load, etc.
Unlike x264, it looks like we don't have a lot of room for manoeuver here.
(the current value is "number-of-cpus" minus 1)
Maybe this should be capped at 2 threads.

[totaam]

2018-05-30 17:31:24: maxmylyn commented

---

I've set up a quick script that should run a series of three tests runs with XPRA_VPX_THREADS set to 1, 2, and 4. For reference the test box is an 8-core system. I'm more curious to see how much of an impact it has on more low-end machines so I'm going to update one of my low-end test boxes and run the tests again on there.

[totaam]

2018-09-11 15:01:57: antoine edited the issue description

[totaam]

2019-02-09 03:42:04: antoine changed status from assigned to new

[totaam]

2019-02-09 03:42:04: antoine changed owner from maxmylyn to encodedEntropy

[totaam]

2019-08-01 13:00:29: smo changed owner from encodedEntropy to smo

[totaam]

2019-08-07 20:09:26: smo uploaded file test_vpx.tar.gz (138.2 KiB)

VPX data and charts for threads 1/2/4

[totaam]

2019-08-07 20:10:42: smo changed owner from smo to Antoine Martin

[totaam]

2019-08-07 20:10:42: smo commented

---

I've attached some test data and charts.

The data seems to show that more threads is better.

Can you check these over and let me know if any other action is required.

[totaam]

2019-08-08 10:53:16: antoine changed status from new to closed

[totaam]

2019-08-08 10:53:16: antoine set resolution to fixed

[totaam]

2019-08-08 10:53:16: antoine commented

---

Interesting data:

• we encode more pixels per second with more threads but when it comes to actually sending ("pixels sent"), the benefits are much lower as other costs come into play (and maybe we're hitting a performance ceiling?)
• there seems to be a sweet spot with 2 threads, at least for the batch delay and damage latency
• going up to 4 threads doesn't gain much (ie: marginal improvement in damage latency and pixels sent per second) - I suspect that this may vary with bigger picture sizes
• decoding takes a little bit longer with more threads - which is fine, we're almost never bound by the client's decoding speed
• 4 threads uses quite a bit more server side memory

So, r23474 makes us use fewer threads by default (was number-of-cpus - 1):

>>> import math
>>> for i in range(8):
...  print("%-3i: %2i" % (2**i, math.sqrt(2**i+1)))
... 
1  :  1
2  :  1
4  :  2
8  :  3
16 :  4
32 :  5
64 :  8
128: 11

This can still be overriden using the env var XPRA_VPX_THREADS=