Re: How should we handle isochronous underruns?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Naturally, under normal circumstances this won't matter, because
>>> underruns shouldn't occur.  But I know from experience that people try
>>> to push the latency as far down as they can, which increases the
>>> likelihood of underruns.
>>
>> I understand the latency is effected by packet count in one URB,
>> and it shouldn't be related with URB count,
>
> This is true only when capturing.  For playback, the latency is the
> length of the entire pipeline.

For playback, every URB submitted is added into hw table
immediately, then the data will be played to speaker. I don't
understand why the latency is the entire pipeline.  If you submitted
a bit more URBs, underruns shouldn't happen at all.

Could you explain it in a bit detail?

Thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux