On 2014-09-29 14:49, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 29.09.2014 18:16, David Henningsson wrote: >> Ah, now I get it - the problem is not that the buffer might become half >> empty, the problem is that you might estimate to sleep too long, so your >> process time is effectively cut in half: if you previously had problems >> with process times > 20 ms, you can now potentially have problems with >> process times > 10 ms. >> >> I doubt this is a blocker, as this will resolve itself naturally since >> the potential underruns that might occur will just cause the process >> time to increase, but it's a very valid point and worthy some thought in >> case this patch will ever be v2. >> >> (Still waiting for somebody to report back that it's actually making a >> difference - otherwise I won't fix anything that isn't broken.) > > I think it is worth testing on a Xonar DX or any other card with an > insanely large FIFO size. Unfortunately, I don't own this card, and it > would be a rather big stretch to ask my friend (who has it) to test a > patched version of PulseAudio :( I don't have any Xonar DX card either, but out of curiousity, what FIFO size, in actual numbers/latency, is it that you would call "insanely large"? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
