Hi Takashi and Takashi,
You both question the usability of the patch, so let's take a step back.
Suppose you're writing the next JACK, or a DAW, or something like that.
When writing a DAW, you need to support the users who need ultra-low
latency for live playing of an instrument. These users (unfortunately)
need to reconfigure their Linux installation, have special kernels,
buy expensive sound cards etc, in order to get the best possible
latency.
You also should give the best possible experience for people who don't
have the time to do that. Just recording a simple MIDI file should not
require any extra kernel options, RT_PRIO privileges or anything like
that. (And then there are people in between, who try to get the best
possible latency given their limited time, money and skills.)
Now you're asking yourself whether to use rawmidi or seq API. It seems
silly to have to support both.
The seq interface is suboptimal for the first use case, due to the
latency introduced by the workqueue. But rawmidi is entirely
impossible for the second use case, due to the lack of timestamping.
(From a quick look at Ardour's sources, it does support both rawmidi
and seq. The rawmidi code mostly timestamps the message and sends it
to another thread. [1] I e, essentially what I believe the kernel
should do, because that timestamp is better.)
What you don't need is exact measurements of burst interval or even
timestamp accuracy. All you have use for is the best possible
timestamp, because that's what's going to be written into the MIDI
file. There might be other use cases for burst intervals etc, but I
don't see them helping here.
On 2021-03-26 17:44, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 17:29:04 +0100,
David Henningsson wrote:
But actually I'd like to see some measurement how much we can improve
the timestamp accuracy by shifting the post office. This may show
interesting numbers.
Sorry, I don't know the idiom "shifting the post office" and neither
does the urban dictionary, so I have no idea what this means. :-)
It was just joking; you basically moved the place to stamp the
incoming data from one place (at the delivery center of a sequencer
event) to another earlier place (at the irq handler).
The question is: how much time difference have you measured by this
move?
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have not done any measurements
because it would be quite time consuming to do so, across different
hardware, kernel configurations, and so on. I don't have that time
right now, sorry. But the claim that workqueues can be delayed up to a
second (!) from just adding a few RT_PRIO tasks [2] is enough to scare
me from using the seq interface for accurate timestamping.
Also, one thing to be more considered is the support for MIDI v2 in
future. I haven't seen any development so far (and no device
available around), so I cannot comment on this much more, but it'd be
worth to take a quick look before defining the solid API/ABI.
I had a quick look at MIDI 2.0. It offers something called "Jitter
reduction timestamps". After some searching I found that its
resolution is 16 bit, and in units of 1/31250 seconds [1]. So the
suggested timestamp format of secs + nsecs would suit us well for that
case, I believe. When implemented, MIDI 2.0 jitter reduction
timestamps would be another clock ID on top of the existing frame
format (or a new frame format, if we prefer).
A midi 2.0 UMP (Universal Midi Packet) seems to be 4, 8, 12 or 16
bytes, excluding the timestamp. If we want to fit that format with the
existing patch, we could increase the frame to 32 bytes so we can fit
more data per packet. Do you think we should do that? Otherwise I
think Patch v3 is ready for merging.
Let's evaluate a bit what would be the best fit. I see no big reason
to rush the merge right now.
Does this mean "evaluate for a week or two because of kernel cadence,
merge windows etc" or does this mean "evaluate for months or years
until someone does a full MIDI 2.0 kernel implementation"?
