On 11/07/2012 09:59 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
For those who aren't following the planet, thought I'd like you know
that I've put up notes from PulseConf up at:
http://arunraghavan.net/2012/11/pulseconf-2012-report/
One comment on the low-latency case for desktop gaming with a 16ms
latency. I imagine this means trouble when sending data to the HDaudio
driver. With the PulseAudio sink architecture, you need the sink and
ring buffer to be of equal size (feature, not bug), which means you need
a ring buffer size of 8ms tops (neglecting the client-server buffer),
The ring buffer is still large (to be able to dynamically change to
higher latency), but it is being almost empty. But maybe that is not a
practical difference here.
Not sure what you mean with "sink" and "ring buffer". When mixing, data
goes from the sink-input / "client-server" buffer into the DMA buffer
directly.
I know Arun is experimenting with the latency calculations to improve
low-latency scenarios, so better not go into details as they might be
about to change :-)
and events up to 4ms apart. Has anyone tried the changes we pushed
recently at the kernel level to properly handle the ring buffer pointer
and delay? I believe some of the underruns may be due to the ~1ms
inaccuracy that we had before these changes. If your driver is already
giving you a 25% precision error no wonder things are broken?
Right now we have bigger issues, such as why nobody is responding to
messages such as this one [1] :-(
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/5/74
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
