Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)

BUG=webrtc:5687
Committed: https://crrev.com/857c5ccdb56e4c94196f7c6227abd5993c95abe2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12620}

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-04-26 13:24:38]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder




BUG=
==========

to

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the
BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of
zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)


BUG=webrtc:5687
==========

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-04-26 15:03:14]

perkj@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ mflodman@webrtc.org, stefan@webrtc.org

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-04-26 15:03:15]

Hi
Can you please review?

[stefan-webrtc, 2016-04-29 10:48:39]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
File webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator.cc:34: void
BitrateAllocator::OnNetworkChanged(uint32_t bitrate,
Is there a point in changing this method?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
File webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator_unittest.cc:100: // Verify that if the network
estimate is set to zero, the allocated rate is
bandwidth estimate instead of network estimate

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc
File webrtc/call/call.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:683: uint32_t min_send_bitrate =
bitrate_allocator_->GetMinSendBitrate();
I think this can race with the call on 669. Probably doesn't matter, but if
there's no other benefit with this API we could return it as before.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:697:
congestion_controller_->UpdatePaddingBitrate(pad_up_to_bitrate_bps);
I think we still have to set the target_bitrate_bps.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:205:
pacer_->SetNetWorkEstimateTargetBitrate(bitrate_bps);
I'd prefer keeping this in OnNetworkChanged and not have a dependency from
BitrateController on Pacer. I think this is harder to follow than before when
the pacer bitrates were updated in one place.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc:257: estimated_bitrate_bps / 1000 *
kDefaultPaceMultiplier)),
I'm slightly hesitant to moving kDefaultPaceMultiplier in here. It removes the
possibility of setting different multipliers for different applications / source
types. For instance if we know we're only operating on a local wifi (not going
over the open internet) we may want to have a higher multiplier. Do you think
there's a big benefit to having it here?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc:262:
target_bitrate_kbps_(estimated_bitrate_bps / 1000 *
pacing_bitrate_kbps_, perhaps?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
We have pretty few examples of "Delegate" in this part of the code base,
Callback or Observer is more common.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:89: void
SetNetWorkEstimateTargetBitrate(uint32_t bitrate_bps);
SetSendBitrate or SetTargetBitrate, or maybe even SetPacingBitrate?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:97: void SetPaddingBitrate(int
bitrate_bps);
SetPaddingBitrate is a bad name I think, since the API actually adds padding to
reach the given bitrate.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc:191: const size_t
packets_to_send_per_intervall =
interval

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc:823: // const int kBitrateKbps =
(kBitrateBps + 500) / 1000;
Remove

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc
File webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/video/vie_encoder...
webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc:282: // Too low bitrate to send data.
I think we can remove the comment.

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-02 11:29:10]

Please?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
File webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator.cc:34: void
BitrateAllocator::OnNetworkChanged(uint32_t bitrate,
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Is there a point in changing this method?

Reverting as discussed.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
File webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/bitrate_allo...
webrtc/call/bitrate_allocator_unittest.cc:100: // Verify that if the network
estimate is set to zero, the allocated rate is
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> bandwidth estimate instead of network estimate

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc
File webrtc/call/call.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:683: uint32_t min_send_bitrate =
bitrate_allocator_->GetMinSendBitrate();
discussed off line. Reverting.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:697:
congestion_controller_->UpdatePaddingBitrate(pad_up_to_bitrate_bps);
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> I think we still have to set the target_bitrate_bps.

See new architecture.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:205:
pacer_->SetNetWorkEstimateTargetBitrate(bitrate_bps);
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> I'd prefer keeping this in OnNetworkChanged and not have a dependency from
> BitrateController on Pacer. I think this is harder to follow than before when
> the pacer bitrates were updated in one place.

ok- as discussed.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc:257: estimated_bitrate_bps / 1000 *
kDefaultPaceMultiplier)),
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> I'm slightly hesitant to moving kDefaultPaceMultiplier in here. It removes the
> possibility of setting different multipliers for different applications /
source
> types. For instance if we know we're only operating on a local wifi (not going
> over the open internet) we may want to have a higher multiplier. Do you think
> there's a big benefit to having it here?

I think its very weird that it has to be set outside the pacer. But if you ever
want to implement what you suggest it should be easy to add an API to the
PacedSender to configure it.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.cc:262:
target_bitrate_kbps_(estimated_bitrate_bps / 1000 *
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> pacing_bitrate_kbps_, perhaps?

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> We have pretty few examples of "Delegate" in this part of the code base,
> Callback or Observer is more common.

Ok- do you this this change is wrong? I don't think this is your typical
Callback or Observer. This implements methods that  the Pacer needs to function,
a delegate in my opinion. 

I changed the name when I tried to add an Observer - that would be notified if
the pacer was full. But Since I reverted that change I can change this name
back...

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc:191: const size_t
packets_to_send_per_intervall =
On 2016/04/29 10:48:38, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> interval

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender_unittest.cc:823: // const int kBitrateKbps =
(kBitrateBps + 500) / 1000;
On 2016/04/29 10:48:39, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Remove

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc
File webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/140001/webrtc/video/vie_encoder...
webrtc/video/vie_encoder.cc:282: // Too low bitrate to send data.
On 2016/04/29 10:48:39, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> I think we can remove the comment.

Done.

[stefan-webrtc, 2016-05-02 12:56:47]

Looks a lot better!

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/call/call.cc
File webrtc/call/call.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:696:
congestion_controller_->SetAllocatedSendBitrate(allocated_bitrate_bps,
Shouldn't this be pacer_bitrate_bps?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:104: // This is
left for code that is not yet updated.
Maybe move this to the .h file by the observer pointer? Just so we don't miss
removing the comment later.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:142: :
clock_(clock),
You should be able to call the other constructor from this one to reduce the
code duplication, right?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:284:
pacer_->SetNetWorkEstimateTargetBitrate(bitrate_bps);
Please rename this method. Maybe SetEstimatedBitrate

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:292: return;
Remove this line.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller_unittest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller_unittest.cc:53:
TEST_F(CongestionControllerTest, OnSendQueueFull) {
Would be good with a test for the cases where the bitrate simply is increased or
reduced too.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h
(right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h:40: class
CongestionObserver {
Not sure what a good name for this would be... NetworkParameterObserver? Or
maybe CongestionObserver is good

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h:105: void
MaybeTriggerOnNetworkChanged();
Methods before members

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
I don't think we have to rename this.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/remote_bi...
File webrtc/modules/remote_bitrate_estimator/test/estimators/remb.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/remote_bi...
webrtc/modules/remote_bitrate_estimator/test/estimators/remb.h:43:
::testing::NiceMock<MockPacedSender> pacer_;
No longer needed.

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-02 14:45:35]

PTAL

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/call/call.cc
File webrtc/call/call.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/call/call.cc#newc...
webrtc/call/call.cc:696:
congestion_controller_->SetAllocatedSendBitrate(allocated_bitrate_bps,
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Shouldn't this be pacer_bitrate_bps?
I don't think so. We should just care about what the allocator say.
|target_bitrate_bps| is already set as the estimate to the pacer.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:104: // This is
left for code that is not yet updated.
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Maybe move this to the .h file by the observer pointer? Just so we don't miss
> removing the comment later.

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:142: :
clock_(clock),
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> You should be able to call the other constructor from this one to reduce the
> code duplication, right?

I tried. But Since the pacer needs the PacketRouter it is not possible. The
alternative is to remove this ctor and always use the second. But I don't think
it make sence for Call to know how to create a pacer and and the packet router.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:284:
pacer_->SetNetWorkEstimateTargetBitrate(bitrate_bps);
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Please rename this method. Maybe SetEstimatedBitrate

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller.cc:292: return;
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Remove this line.

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller_unittest.cc
(right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/congestion_controller_unittest.cc:53:
TEST_F(CongestionControllerTest, OnSendQueueFull) {
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Would be good with a test for the cases where the bitrate simply is increased
or
> reduced too.

added more tests.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
File webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h
(right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h:40: class
CongestionObserver {
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Not sure what a good name for this would be... NetworkParameterObserver? Or
> maybe CongestionObserver is good

Keep as is? 
Or move to inner class of CongestionController and simply call it
CongestionController::Observer?

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/congestio...
webrtc/modules/congestion_controller/include/congestion_controller.h:105: void
MaybeTriggerOnNetworkChanged();
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Methods before members

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> I don't think we have to rename this.

No- but I like this better :->

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/remote_bi...
File webrtc/modules/remote_bitrate_estimator/test/estimators/remb.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/remote_bi...
webrtc/modules/remote_bitrate_estimator/test/estimators/remb.h:43:
::testing::NiceMock<MockPacedSender> pacer_;
On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> No longer needed.

Done.

[mflodman, 2016-05-03 11:30:10]

High level LGTM with one question!

Deferringthe detailed review to Stefan, who I know has looked thoroughly at
this. Let me know if you want me to take a detailed look as well.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
Should this be called something with 'Packet' in the name or is the method name
enough?

[stefan-webrtc, 2016-05-03 12:21:14]

lgtm

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/180001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
On 2016/05/02 14:45:35, perkj_webrtc wrote:
> On 2016/05/02 12:56:47, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> > I don't think we have to rename this.
> 
> No- but I like this better :->

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:213: if
(GetNetworkParameters(&bitrate_bps, &fraction_loss, &rtt)) {
Remove {}

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-03 13:56:00]

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
File webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/bitrate_c...
webrtc/modules/bitrate_controller/bitrate_controller_impl.cc:213: if
(GetNetworkParameters(&bitrate_bps, &fraction_loss, &rtt)) {
On 2016/05/03 12:21:14, stefan-webrtc (holmer) wrote:
> Remove {}

Done.

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
File webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h (right):

https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/diff/220001/webrtc/modules/pacing/pa...
webrtc/modules/pacing/paced_sender.h:36: class SenderDelegate {
On 2016/05/03 11:30:10, mflodman wrote:
> Should this be called something with 'Packet' in the name or is the method
name
> enough?

Why not just call it PacketSender?

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-03 13:56:08]

The CQ bit was checked by perkj@webrtc.org

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-03 13:56:09]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from stefan@webrtc.org,
mflodman@webrtc.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.webrtc.org/1917793002/#ps240001 (title:
"Renamed SenderDelegate to PacketSender.")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-03 13:56:14]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1917793002/240001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1917793002/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-03 15:56:50]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-03 15:56:52]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_arm64_rel on tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  android_dbg on tryserver.webrtc (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-04 07:05:44]

The CQ bit was checked by perkj@webrtc.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-04 07:05:53]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1917793002/240001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1917793002/240001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-04 07:09:57]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the
BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of
zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)


BUG=webrtc:5687
==========

to

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the
BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of
zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)


BUG=webrtc:5687
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-04 07:09:59]

Committed patchset #13 (id:240001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-04 07:10:02]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the
BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of
zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)


BUG=webrtc:5687
==========

to

==========
Remove SendPacer from ViEEncoder

This CL moves the logic where the ViEEncoder pause if the pacer is full to the
BitrateController. If the queue is full, the controller reports a bitrate of
zero to  Call (and BitrateAllocator)

BUG=webrtc:5687

Committed: https://crrev.com/857c5ccdb56e4c94196f7c6227abd5993c95abe2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12620}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-05-04 07:10:03]

Patchset 13 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/857c5ccdb56e4c94196f7c6227abd5993c95abe2
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12620}

[perkj_webrtc, 2016-05-04 08:07:52]

A revert of this CL (patchset #13 id:240001) has been created in
https://codereview.webrtc.org/1947853002/ by perkj@webrtc.org.

The reason for reverting is: Fails in the waterfall here: 

https://build.chromium.org/p/client.webrtc/builders/Win32%20Debug/builds/7832....