On 10/18/18 15:19, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:28:47 +0200,
Timo Wischer wrote:
On 10/18/18 14:02, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:33:24 +0200,
<twischer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Timo Wischer <twischer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Without this change an interval of (x x+1] will be interpreted as an
empty interval but the right value would be x+1.
This leads to a failing snd_pcm_hw_params() call which returns -EINVAL.
An example issue log is given in the following:
snd_pcm_hw_params failed with err -22 (Invalid argument)
ACCESS: MMAP_NONINTERLEAVED
FORMAT: S16_LE
SUBFORMAT: STD
SAMPLE_BITS: 16
FRAME_BITS: 16
CHANNELS: 1
RATE: 16000
PERIOD_TIME: (15999 16000]
PERIOD_SIZE: (255 256]
PERIOD_BYTES: (510 512]
PERIODS: [2 3)
BUFFER_TIME: 32000
BUFFER_SIZE: 512
BUFFER_BYTES: 1024
In case of (x x+1) we have to interpret it anyway as a single value of x to
compensate rounding issues.
For example the period size will result in an interval of (352 353) when
the period time is 16ms and the sample rate 22050 Hz
(16ms * 22,05 kHz = 352,8 frames). But 352 has to be chosen to allow a
buffer size of 705 (32ms * 22,05 kHz = 705,6 frames) which has to be >= 2x
period size to avoid Xruns. The buffer size will not end up with an
interval of (705 706) simular to the period size because
snd_pcm_rate_hw_refine_cchange() calls snd_interval_floor() for the buffer
size. Therefore this value will be interpreted as an integer interval
instead of a real interval further on.
This issue seems to exist since the change of 9bb985c38 ("pcm:
snd_interval_refine_first/last: exclude value only if also excluded
before")
Signed-off-by: Timo Wischer <twischer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
On 10/18/18 12:57, Takashi Iwai wrote:
This change looks risky. The snd_interval_value() might be called
even if the interval isn't reduced to a single value. Rather check
openmin instead.
If I would do
"if (i->openmin)"
on an interval of (x x+1) x+1 would be returned. But this would result in
the second issue which I have tried to describe in the commit message:
x has to be returned otherwise it is not guaranteed that
buffer_size >= 2x period_size. And this would result in continuously Xruns.
Therefore I would like to prefer
"if (i->openmin && !i->openmax)"
Hm, I overlooked that there is an assert() before that. So a
single-value interval is a must at this execution, so it doesn't
matter which one to take.
Didn't the assert() hit in your case with x+1, then?
No. For the implementation of
snd_interval_value()
(x x+1) is also a valid interval which has only a single value.
This is also required because the ALSA neogation rules often end up with intervals like (x x+1)
e.g. in case of rounding issues 32ms * 22,05 kHz = 705,6 frames -> (705 706)
Therefore assert(snd_interval_single(i)) has to not fail in case of (705 706).
And this is a problematic case no matter which value to take.
Your change might "fix" your specific case, but it might break
others. No matter which value (min or max) to take, it's basically
invalid.
If your fix is logically correct, it's fine. But, judging from the
description, it looks like nothing but heuristic based on your
specific use cases.
The reason for this fix was an issue where an interval of (x x+1] is
interpreted as not a single value.
Before the change in snd_interval_single() the following intervals were
interpreted as a single value:
* (x x) -> required for rounding issues e.g. 32ms * 22,05 kHz = 705,6
frames => (705 706)
* (x x]
* [x x)
* [x x]
* (x x+1)
* [x x+1)
With this change (x x+1] will also be interpreted as a single value
(which looks reasonable for me).
But the interval [x x+1] is still not interpreted as a single value
(which also sounds right for me)
Before the change in snd_interval_value() for all intervals x was returned.
With this change only in case (x x+1] x+1 will be returned. All other
intervals are not changed.
Therefore this is a minimal change which solves issues. I have already
at least two use cases which
are failing without this fix. (Somehow simple use cases with
rate->dmix->hw where the hw truncates
the default period_time of 125ms and fails with EINVAL on
snd_pcm_set_period_near()).
Therefore I would expect that these issues will be seen soon by other users.
If there is a use case which breaks in future due to the right
interpretation of (x x+1] I think we should try
to find the root cause why this (x x+1] interval has to be interpreted
wrongly to get the use case to work.
IOW, if we have a good set of unit tests to cover most of possible use
cases and this is proven to improve all these, I'll happily take it.
But unfortunately there is no good test coverage, so far.
At least I have executed several tests on my end which are using
different combination of ALSA plugins
(plug, rate, dmix, dsnoop), sample rates, channels, period and buffer
sizes on different hardware with different
sound cards.
I would expect that you are talking about the tests in the test
directory of the alsa-lib sources. Or is there
anything else? May be I could try to extend/add some tests at least to
reproduce the issue of this patch.
Best regards and thanks for your time
Timo
thanks,
Takashi
Best regards
Timo
Takashi
diff --git a/src/pcm/interval_inline.h b/src/pcm/interval_inline.h
index a68e292..d9a30b2 100644
--- a/src/pcm/interval_inline.h
+++ b/src/pcm/interval_inline.h
@@ -51,12 +51,14 @@ INTERVAL_INLINE int snd_interval_single(const snd_interval_t *i)
{
assert(!snd_interval_empty(i));
return (i->min == i->max ||
- (i->min + 1 == i->max && i->openmax));
+ (i->min + 1 == i->max && (i->openmin || i->openmax)));
}
INTERVAL_INLINE int snd_interval_value(const snd_interval_t *i)
{
assert(snd_interval_single(i));
+ if (i->openmin && !i->openmax)
+ return i->max;
return i->min;
}
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
