On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:43:22 +0200, Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote: > > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> 於 2020年8月12日 週三 下午2:58寫道： > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:53:42 +0200, > > Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote: > > > > > > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> 於 2020年8月12日 週三 下午2:14寫道： > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:09:58 +0200, > > > > Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年8月12日 週三 上午1:22寫道： > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:54:38AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint logic needs to know about this DSP limitation - it seems like > > > > > > > > none of this is going to change without something new going into the > > > > > > > > mix? We at least need a new question to ask about the DSP firmware I > > > > > > > > think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just tested aplay -Dhw: on a Cyan Chromebook with the Ubuntu kernel 5.4, > > > > > > > and I see no issues with the 240 sample period. Same with 432, 960, 9600, > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also tried just for fun what happens with 256 samples, and I don't see any > > > > > > > underflows thrown either, so I am wondering what exactly the problem is? > > > > > > > Something's not adding up. I would definitively favor multiple of 1ms > > > > > > > periods, since it's the only case that was productized, but there's got to > > > > > > > me something a side effect of how CRAS programs the hw_params. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it something that goes wrong with longer playbacks possibly (eg, > > > > > > someone watching a feature film or something)? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for testing! > > > > > > > > > > After doing some experiments, I think I can identify the problem more precisely. > > > > > 1. aplay can not reproduce this issue because it writes samples > > > > > immediately when there are some space in the buffer. However, you can > > > > > add --test-position to see how the delay grows with period size 256. > > > > > > aplay -Dhw:1,0 --period-size=256 --buffer-size=480 /dev/zero -d 1 -f dat --test-position > > > > > Playing raw data '/dev/zero' : Signed 16 bit Little Endian, Rate 48000 > > > > > Hz, Stereo > > > > > Suspicious buffer position (1 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer = 512 > > > > > Suspicious buffer position (2 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer = 512 > > > > > Suspicious buffer position (3 total): avail = 0, delay = 2096, buffer = 512 > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Isn't this about the alignment of the buffer size against the period > > > > size, not the period size itself? i.e. in the example above, the > > > > buffer size isn't a multiple of period size, and DSP can't handle if > > > > the position overlaps the buffer size in a half way. > > > > > > > > If that's the problem (and it's an oft-seen restriction), the right > > > > constraint is > > > > snd_pcm_hw_constraint_integer(runtime, SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIODS); > > > > > > > > > > > > Takashi > > > Oh sorry for my typo. The issue happens no matter what buffer size is > > > set. Actually, even if I want to set 480, it will change to 512 > > > automatically. > > > Suspicious buffer position (1 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer > > > = 512 <-this one is the buffer size > > > > OK, then it means that the buffer size alignment is already in place. > > > > And this large delay won't happen if you use period size 240? > > > > > > Takashi > Yes! If I set the period size to 240, it will not print "Suspicious > buffer position ..." So it sounds like DSP handles the delay report incorrectly. Then it comes to another question: the driver supports both SOF and SST. Is there the behavior difference between both DSPs wrt this delay issue? Takashi > > Yu-Hsuan > > > > > > > > 2. Since many samples are moved to DSP(delay), the measured rate of > > > > > the ring-buffer is high. (I measured it by alsa_conformance_test, > > > > > which only test the sampling rate in the ring buffer of kernel not > > > > > DSP) > > > > > > > > > > 3. Since CRAS writes samples with a fixed frequency, this behavior > > > > > will take all samples from the ring buffer, which is seen as underrun > > > > > by CRAS. (It seems that it is not a real underrun because that avail > > > > > does not larger than buffer size. Maybe CRAS should also take dalay > > > > > into account.) > > > > > > > > > > 4. In spite of it is not a real underrun, the large delay is still a > > > > > big problem. Can we apply the constraint to fix it? Or any better > > > > > idea? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yu-Hsuan > > > > > > > > >
