On 11/07/2012 09:59 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > >> For those who aren't following the planet, thought I'd like you know >> that I've put up notes from PulseConf up at: >> >> http://arunraghavan.net/2012/11/pulseconf-2012-report/ > > One comment on the low-latency case for desktop gaming with a 16ms > latency. I imagine this means trouble when sending data to the HDaudio > driver. With the PulseAudio sink architecture, you need the sink and > ring buffer to be of equal size (feature, not bug), which means you need > a ring buffer size of 8ms tops (neglecting the client-server buffer), The ring buffer is still large (to be able to dynamically change to higher latency), but it is being almost empty. But maybe that is not a practical difference here. Not sure what you mean with "sink" and "ring buffer". When mixing, data goes from the sink-input / "client-server" buffer into the DMA buffer directly. I know Arun is experimenting with the latency calculations to improve low-latency scenarios, so better not go into details as they might be about to change :-) > and events up to 4ms apart. Has anyone tried the changes we pushed > recently at the kernel level to properly handle the ring buffer pointer > and delay? I believe some of the underruns may be due to the ~1ms > inaccuracy that we had before these changes. If your driver is already > giving you a 25% precision error no wonder things are broken? Right now we have bigger issues, such as why nobody is responding to messages such as this one [1] :-( -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/5/74