On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jens M Andreasen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 10:23 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >> 1) the question is now how to fit a single set of N samples into cache >> memory. Its how to fit *all* the samples to be processed in a given >> "cycle" into cache memory. Wasting 25% of cache memory for each buffer >> isn't conducive to this. > > If 96 frames are enough for stability (and say 64 isn't), then sample 96 > - 127 in a 128 frame buffer are a waste of memory anyway and only adds > to latency.
sometimes there is a tradeoff between latency and CPU cycles. live recording often tilts towards less CPU cycles and more latency. > It may even be so that a set of shorter buffers that are only partially > aligned - but allocated as one continous area - may have a greater > chance of fitting into available cache, without trashing other important > data. the point of making things cache aligned relates to SSE(2). the point of making them fit in the cache relates to overall throughput. not quite the same thing. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
