Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de 於 2020年8月12日 週三 下午2:14寫道：
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 05:09:58 +0200, Yu-Hsuan Hsu wrote:
Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org 於 2020年8月12日 週三 上午1:22寫道：
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:54:38AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
constraint logic needs to know about this DSP limitation - it seems like none of this is going to change without something new going into the mix? We at least need a new question to ask about the DSP firmware I think.
I just tested aplay -Dhw: on a Cyan Chromebook with the Ubuntu kernel 5.4, and I see no issues with the 240 sample period. Same with 432, 960, 9600, etc.
I also tried just for fun what happens with 256 samples, and I don't see any underflows thrown either, so I am wondering what exactly the problem is? Something's not adding up. I would definitively favor multiple of 1ms periods, since it's the only case that was productized, but there's got to me something a side effect of how CRAS programs the hw_params.
Is it something that goes wrong with longer playbacks possibly (eg, someone watching a feature film or something)?
Thanks for testing!
After doing some experiments, I think I can identify the problem more precisely.
- aplay can not reproduce this issue because it writes samples
immediately when there are some space in the buffer. However, you can add --test-position to see how the delay grows with period size 256.
aplay -Dhw:1,0 --period-size=256 --buffer-size=480 /dev/zero -d 1 -f dat --test-position
Playing raw data '/dev/zero' : Signed 16 bit Little Endian, Rate 48000 Hz, Stereo Suspicious buffer position (1 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer = 512 Suspicious buffer position (2 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer = 512 Suspicious buffer position (3 total): avail = 0, delay = 2096, buffer = 512 ...
Isn't this about the alignment of the buffer size against the period size, not the period size itself? i.e. in the example above, the buffer size isn't a multiple of period size, and DSP can't handle if the position overlaps the buffer size in a half way.
If that's the problem (and it's an oft-seen restriction), the right constraint is snd_pcm_hw_constraint_integer(runtime, SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIODS);
Takashi
Oh sorry for my typo. The issue happens no matter what buffer size is set. Actually, even if I want to set 480, it will change to 512 automatically. Suspicious buffer position (1 total): avail = 0, delay = 2064, buffer = 512 <-this one is the buffer size
- Since many samples are moved to DSP(delay), the measured rate of
the ring-buffer is high. (I measured it by alsa_conformance_test, which only test the sampling rate in the ring buffer of kernel not DSP)
- Since CRAS writes samples with a fixed frequency, this behavior
will take all samples from the ring buffer, which is seen as underrun by CRAS. (It seems that it is not a real underrun because that avail does not larger than buffer size. Maybe CRAS should also take dalay into account.)
- In spite of it is not a real underrun, the large delay is still a
big problem. Can we apply the constraint to fix it? Or any better idea?
Thanks, Yu-Hsuan