On 3/25/18 9:58 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:46:43 +0200,
Sriram Periyasamy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:17:35PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:01:06 +0100,
Sriram Periyasamy wrote:
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add new hw_params flag to explicitly tell driver that rewinds will never
be used. This can be used by low-level driver to optimize DMA operations
and reduce power consumption. Use this flag only when data written in
ring buffer will never be invalidated, e.g. any update of appl_ptr is
final.
Note that the update of appl_ptr include both a read/write data
operation as well as snd_pcm_forward() whose behavior is not modified.
Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ramesh Babu <ramesh.babu@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Subhransu S. Prusty <subhransu.s.prusty@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sriram Periyasamy <sriramx.periyasamy@xxxxxxxxx>
Well, I'm still not convinced with this flag.
First off, does it really need to be per PCM stream? The introducing
Flag per PCM stream helps where each stream in given system may have
different requirement such as low power or low latency based on the
use case. For example in case of low power stream, driver can perform
required optimizations at hardware level based on the no_rewind flag.
Yes, but does it really need to be PCM stream, i.e. per application?
Certainly the system will be using some sound backend (like PA). In
which scenario can such behavior change -- some application uses a
different backend on a phone or a tablet?
This is intended for the case where the system server exposes a
'deep-buffer' PCM device for music playback in low-power mode and a
separate one for system sounds or anything that requires interactivity.
The need for rewinding is really for the case where the interactive
system sounds are mixed with music, when you have separation between
types of sounds and hardware/firmware mixing then the rewinds are
unnecessary.
If there are multiple applications using different PCM devices each
(which is a bit hypothetical to me) there is no way to know ahead of
time when the modules are loaded if the application will perform rewinds
due to its interactive nature or will just stream without ever
invalidating the ring buffer. So yes it's per stream.
something to hw_parms implies that it varies per application. But I
can't imagine that a system requires different behavior per stream
regarding such a thing.
Second, the driver can implement a check in PCM ack callback to
prevent the rewind, too. Then there is no need to touch the PCM
core.
As per the previous discussion at [1],
[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9795233/
from Pierre,
"The application (which is in most cases an audio server) *knows* if it
requires rewinds or not. It's part of its design, with rewinds typically
disabled if period interrupts are required. It's been that way for a
number of years now. The use of rewinds is typically associated with the
combination of a large buffer and no interrupts (having either of the
two would not require rewinds).
So the idea is that the application makes a statement that rewinds will
not be used, and the low-level driver makes use of the information to
enable whatever optimizations are available at the hardware level.
Exposing more information to userspace would quickly lead to a confusing
decision-making and would require more than just a flag."
And, requiring *that* information is already confusing, IMO.
Think from the application writer POV: what is the relation between
the power-saving and no_rewind behavior in application level at all?
If you have no idea about the hardware details, they are totally
irrelevant.
I feel like disabling IRQs or disabling rewinds is the same level of
information, you set the flags without necessary knowing all the power
savings down to the mW level. But it provides an opportunity to save
power with additional degrees of freedom for implementations.
An additional benefit of using the underlying SPIB register on Intel
hardware is that the DMA hardware will not wrap-around, which can lead
to better detection of real-time issues and a guarantee that stale data
will not be played.
Or, think like this way: imagine a hardware that requires a different
constraint, e.g. the power-of-two buffer size, for power-efficient
operation. What would you do? Adding a new power_of_two bit flag
into hw_params? Likely not.
we've added the noIRQ mode in the past using flags, if now you are
saying that flags is a bad idea then fine, but let's be consistent...
In such a case, I would expect some operation mode switch
(e.g. power-saving vs low latency or whatever) instead of a very
specific hw_parmas flag. It might be a module option, via ALSA
control, or something else. But it's clearer for which purpose it's
present, at least, and it can be implemented well without changing the
existing API.
We have no way of predicting what the application will do so the module
option is not possible.
Using an ALSA control is possible, but it's odd to me.
I really don't see what's so problematic about adding flags. I uses an
existing capability of the API, it's consistent with the previous
usages. There is no change in behavior for existing apps, only newer can
benefit for better use of the hardware. There is no complicated decision
making, you set the flags if you don't use IRQ or rewinds.
And it's not like we will have new flags every week, we've been talking
about this SPIB capability since Skylake which is 3 years old already.
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
