On Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:44:10 +0200,
Chancel Liu wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Hi Takashi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply and suggestions. Finally we have found the root cause.
> > > Seems it's related to both drivers and alsa-lib.
> > >
> > > When two dmix clients run in parallel we get two direct dmix instances.
> > > 1st dmix instance:
> > > snd_pcm_dmix_open()
> > > snd_pcm_direct_initialize_slave()
> > > save_slave_setting()
> > > Since the driver we are using has SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag,
> > > dmix->spcm->info has this flag. Then this flag is cleared in
> > dmix->shmptr->s.info.
> > >
> > > 2nd dmix instance:
> > > snd_pcm_dmix_open()
> > > snd_pcm_direct_open_secondary_client()
> > > copy_slave_setting()
> > > 2nd dmix->spcm->info is copied from dmix->shmptr->s.info so it doesn'
> > > has this flag.
> > >
> > > If 1st dmix instance resumes firstly it should implement recovery of
> > > slave pcm in snd_pcm_direct_slave_recover(). Because 1st
> > > dmix->spcm->info has
> > > SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME，snd_pcm_resume(direct->spcm) can be called
> > > correctly to resume slave pcm.
> >
> > ... and immediately stop the stream, then prepare and restart as a usual
> > restart.
> >
> > > However if 2nd dmix instance resumes firstly,
> > > snd_pcm_resume(direct->spcm) will not be called because it's
> > > spcm->info doesn't has SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag. The 1st dmix instance
> > > assumes someone else already did recovery so
> > > snd_pcm_resume(direct->spcm) won't be called neither. In result the
> > > slave pcm fails to resume.
> >
> > Something wrong happening here, then.
> >
> > In dmix, there is no hardware resume at all, but it's always a restart of the
> > stream. The call of snd_pcm_resume() is only temporarily for inconsistencies
> > that can be a problem on some drivers (IIRC dmaengine stuff). That said,
> > dmix does a kind of fake resume, stops and restarts the stream cleanly on the
> > first instance. On the second instance, it's already recovered, hence it bails
> > out.
> >
> > If poll() hangs on the second instance, there can be some other problem.
> > Maybe the resume -> stop -> restart sequence doesn't work with your driver
> > well?
> >
>
> Our dma driver will do PAUSE in system suspend and requires doing RESUME in
> system resume. Current problem is that snd_pcm_resume() is not called by both
> 1st instance and 2nd instance.
That's weird. Are you really testing with the latest alsa-lib code?
If application doesn't call snd_pcm_resume(), it means that the PCM
state isn't set to SUSPENDED, so it pretends as if still running.
Or if you mean that snd_pcm_resume() to the slave PCM isn't called
(even though snd_pcm_resume() is called for the dmix PCM), check
whether snd_pcm_direct_slave_recover() gets called, especially at the
point:
/* some buggy drivers require the device resumed before prepared;
* when a device has RESUME flag and is in SUSPENDED state, resume
* here but immediately drop to bring it to a sane active state.
*/
if (state == SND_PCM_STATE_SUSPENDED &&
(direct->spcm->info & SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME)) {
snd_pcm_resume(direct->spcm);
snd_pcm_drop(direct->spcm);
snd_pcm_direct_timer_stop(direct);
snd_pcm_direct_clear_timer_queue(direct);
}
Try to put debug prints or catch via breakpoint whether this code path
is executed.
Also, does the issue happen with the latest 6.11-rc kernel, too?
If yes, what if you drop SNDRV_PCM_INFO_RESUME bit flag in the driver
side? Does the problem persist, or it works?
> > > SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag has impact on the flow of dmix resume. In my
> > > opinion the first resumed dmix instance should make sure slave pcm can
> > > be recovered properly no matter it's the first opened instance or
> > > secondary opened instance
> > .
> >
> > The snd_pcm_resume() gets called no matter which instance, just the first one
> > who tries to recover the suspended state. (And it's called internally at
> > updating the various state, not necessarily an explicit recovery call.)
> >
>
> Unfortunately if secondary opened instance resumes first it doesn't has
> SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME which causes snd_pcm_resume() never be called.
No, it's misunderstanding. SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME isn't exposed to the
application in the case of dmix at all; i.e. dmix doesn't support the
full resume, per se. That's the design. So it doesn't matter which
instance gets resumed at first.
> > > Do you know why the secondary opened instance clear the
> > > SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME flag? Can we do the following modification?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/src/pcm/pcm_direct.c b/src/pcm/pcm_direct.c @@ -1183,8
> > > +1226,6 @@ static void save_slave_setting(snd_pcm_direct_t *dmix,
> > snd_pcm_t *spcm)
> > > COPY_SLAVE(buffer_time);
> > > COPY_SLAVE(sample_bits);
> > > COPY_SLAVE(frame_bits);
> > > -
> > > - dmix->shmptr->s.info &= ~SND_PCM_INFO_RESUME;
> >
> > I don't think so. The clearance of the RESUME flag here is correct.
> > dmix doesn't support the hardware resume feature. It does its own.
> > (And this flag is merely a info for apps, which isn't really evaluated except for
> > the code in dmix workaround there.)
> >
> >
> > Takashi
> >
>
> I think dmix should know what state the real driver is. If driver requires that
> app should do snd_pcm_resume() how can dmix get this information?
The dmix already knows. But the PCM state exposed to applications
isn't always tied as 1:1.
Takashi
