On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 17:06 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 17.08.2016 15:22, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:58 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > Yes, the benefit would be the same, but with much more overhead
> > > and also with the drawback of discontinuities in the beginning.
> > What overhead? Do you think there's more overhead than one if
> > check?
> >
> > if (delay < 0) {
> > Â Â Â Â Â pa_smoother_adjust_reference_point(smoother, delay);
> > Â Â Â Â Â delay = 0;
> > }
>
> What about the function? There is a pa_smoother_set_time_offset()
> function, but it does not add up the consecutive changes as would
> be necessary, so we would have to store the current offset elsewhere.
> This is an additional variable that must be tracked and initialized. To me
> this seems more complex than copying an already existing function.
Adding pa_smoother_adjust_time_offset() probably wouldn't be
complicated.
> > >
> > > and going through the effort of making
> > > them positive just because it looks nicer does not make sense to me.
> > "Looking nicer" in this case means less complexity in the core. Maybe
> > you think that has no value? I think it does have value.
>
> As said above it does not look more complex to me, but that's a matter
> of opinion. Anyway, additional complexity only arises because the
> latencies returned by pa_*_get_latency_*() may not be negative, so that
> I have to establish a new function to get the unbiased values.
> If you would simply accept negative numbers, there would even be less
> code.
I think changing all the get_latency functions to deal with signed
numbers would be fine. Maybe they should have a bool flag to tell
whether negative values should be filtered out, if there are many call
sites that need to do the filtering, but from a quick glance there seem
to be also many places where negative values are fine.
> > > It is much easier to accept them as they are because you do not gain
> > > anything by the transformation.
> > > Your approach would not even deliver more accurate results, because
> > > due to the error of the measurements and your idea to accumulate
> > > those negative values, you would end up with always overestimating
> > > the offset by the maximum error of the measurement.
> > Over-adjusting the offset by the maximum error of the measurement case
> > only occurs if the maximum error happens on a measurement that is done
> > when the real latency is exactly zero (which it never is, but it may be
> > close). What magnitude do you expect the maximum non-offset-related
> > error to be? I expect it to be less than what the offset error, in
> > which case shifting the offset should result in more accurate results
> > than not doing that, but maybe I'm wrong about the relative magnitudes
> > of offset errors and other errors?
>
> I think the overall error will be (negligible) smaller if you live with the
> offset.
> Why should the error of the reference point be any different from
> the error of following measurements? In the end, the reference
> point consists of a single measurement.
The initial reset of the smoother is done in a different situation than
regular latency queries, and I got the impression that you observed bad
accuracy specifically when starting a sink or source. Maybe that
impression was wrong.
--Â
Tanu
