On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > 1) I do not believe arbitrary parallelization of the graph is a good idea. > It will be moderately difficult to examine the graph to decide that it's > "okay" to parallelize (i.e. that there are no interconnections or other > dependencies), and far worse, the process will needfully insert latency > into the graph. I believe if authors think they should parallelize their > app, they can do that (with workers and inserting their own latency) - I've > discussed this with a couple of pro audio app builders, and they were > comfortable with this. (that is to say: you don't get arbitrary > parallelization as optimization in any other system I know of. It has side > effects.) > A parallelism analysis could be done in, er, parallel with the actual audio processing. I'm reasonably optimistic that auto-parallelization of Web Audio graphs could pay off. Rob -- oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 13:11:49 UTC