On 08.02.2015 20:30, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 19:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
+ /* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75%
deviation from base rate */
+ min_cycles = (double)abs(latency_difference) / u->adjust_time /
0.0075 + 1;
+
+ /* Rate calculation, maximum deviation from base rate will be
less than 0.75% due to min_cycles */
+ new_rate = base_rate * (1.0 + latency_difference / min_cycles /
u->adjust_time) + 0.5;
What's the aim here with min_cycles? Why not just clamp new_rate
post-factum to 0.75% vicinity of base_rate, as this is done in the 2‰
case?
Without min_cycles you will far more often hit the 2 ‰ limit and when
you are approaching the
base_rate. This seriously disturbs the regulation. The goal was to get
out to 0.75% as quick as
possible while approaching the base rate cautiously (with a weak
regulator when latency is far off).
Also without min_cycles you see the rates hopping up and down (due to
the 2‰ limitation), you do
not see a (more or less) continuous rate function.
Doing what you suggest would give you 0.75% as long as the latency is
more than one
cycle off - but from 0.75% rate deviation you need at least 4 steps to
go back to the
base_rate with the 2 ‰ restriction, so you would seriously over-regulate.
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
