On Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:13:27 +0200,
David Henningsson wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-03-31 09:40, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:35:11 +0200,
> > David Henningsson wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, I believe that rawmidi provides less jitter than seq is not a
> >> theoretical problem but a known fact (see e g [1]), so I haven't tried
> >> to "prove" it myself. And I cannot read your mind well enough to know
> >> what you would consider a sufficient proof - are you expecting to see
> >> differences on a default or RT kernel, on a Threadripper or a
> >> Beaglebone, idle system or while running RT torture tests? Etc.
> > There is certainly difference, and it might be interesting to see the
> > dependency on the hardware or on the configuration. But, again, my
> > primary question is: have you measured how *your patch* really
> > provides the improvement? If yes, please show the numbers in the
> > patch description.
>
> As you requested, I have now performed such testing.
>
> Results:
>
> Seq - idle: 5.0 ms
>
> Seq - hackbench: 1.3 s (yes, above one second)
>
> Raw + framing - idle: 2.8 ms
>
> Raw + framing - hackbench: 2.8 ms
>
> Setup / test description:
>
> I had an external midi sequencer connected through USB. The system
> under test was a Celeron N3150 with internal graphics. The sequencer
> was set to generate note on/note off commands exactly 10 times per
> second.
>
> For the seq tests I used "arecordmidi" and analyzed the delta values
> of resulting midi file. For the raw + framing tests I used a home-made
> application to write a midi file. The monotonic clock option was used
> to rule out differences between monotonic and monotonic_raw. The
> result shown above is the maximum amount of delta value, converted to
> milliseconds, minus the expected 100 ms between notes. Each test was
> run for a minute or two.
>
> For the "idle" test, the machine was idle (running a normal desktop),
> and for the "hackbench" test, "chrt -r 10 hackbench" was run a few
> times in parallel with the midi recording application (which was run
> with "chrt -r 15").
>
> I also tried a few other stress tests but hackbench was the one that
> stood out as totally destroying the timestamps of seq midi. (E g,
> running "rt-migrate-test" in parallel with "arecordmidi" gave a max
> jitter value of 13 ms.)
>
> Conclusion:
>
> I still believe the proposed raw + framing mode is a valuable
> improvement in the normal/idle case, but even more so because it is
> more stable in stressed conditions. Do you agree?
Thanks for the tests. Yes, that's an interesting and convincing
result.
Could you do a couple of favors in addition?
1) Check the other workqueue
It's interesting to see whether the hiprio system workqueue may give a
better latency. A oneliner patch is like below.
-- 8< --
--- a/sound/core/rawmidi.c
+++ b/sound/core/rawmidi.c
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ int snd_rawmidi_receive(struct snd_rawmidi_substream *substream,
}
if (result > 0) {
if (runtime->event)
- schedule_work(&runtime->event_work);
+ queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &runtime->event_work);
else if (__snd_rawmidi_ready(runtime))
wake_up(&runtime->sleep);
}
-- 8< --
Also, system_unbound_wq can be another interesting test case instead
of system_highpri_wq.
2) Direct sequencer event process
If a chance of workqueue doesn't give significant improvement, we
might need to check the direct invocation of the sequencer
dispatcher. A totally untested patch is like below.
-- 8< --
--- a/sound/core/rawmidi.c
+++ b/sound/core/rawmidi.c
@@ -979,6 +979,7 @@ int snd_rawmidi_receive(struct snd_rawmidi_substream *substream,
unsigned long flags;
int result = 0, count1;
struct snd_rawmidi_runtime *runtime = substream->runtime;
+ bool call_event = false;
if (!substream->opened)
return -EBADFD;
@@ -1028,11 +1029,13 @@ int snd_rawmidi_receive(struct snd_rawmidi_substream *substream,
}
if (result > 0) {
if (runtime->event)
- schedule_work(&runtime->event_work);
+ call_event = true;
else if (__snd_rawmidi_ready(runtime))
wake_up(&runtime->sleep);
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&runtime->lock, flags);
+ if (call_event)
+ runtime->event(runtime->substream);
return result;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_rawmidi_receive);
-- 8< --
In theory, this should bring to the same level of latency as the
rawmidi timestamping. Of course, this doesn't mean we can go straight
to this way, but it's some material for consideration.
Takashi
