lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 04:51, Takashi Iwai wrote:
    > At Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:45:30 -0400,
    > Lee Revell wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Would this explain these? When running JACK with settings that need
    > > > > sub-millisecond latencies, I get them when I generate any load at all on
    > > > > the system (typing, switching windows, etc). I also get lots of these
    > > > > if I run JACK from an X terminal, but very few if I run it from a text
    > > > > console, even if X is running in the background.
    > > > >
    > > > > Jul 13 14:36:16 mindpipe kernel: ALSA /usr/src/alsa-cvs-1.0.5/alsa-driver/alsa-kernel/core/pcm_lib.c:199: Unexpected hw_pointer value [1] (stream = 0, delta: -25, max jitter = 32): wrong interrupt acknowledge?
    > > >
    > > > I'm wondering what this message actually means. "Unexpected hw_pointer
    > > > value"?
    > > >
    > > > Does this actually indicate an underrun, or is the debug code screwy?
    > >
    > > Not sure. Here is what Takashi had to say about it:
    > >
    > > "The message appears when an unexpected DMA pointer is read in the
    > > interrupt handler. Either the handling of irq was delayed more than
    > > the buffer size, an irq is issued at the wrong timing, or the DMA
    > > pointer reigster is somehow screwed up.
    > >
    > > Since you're using quite small buffer, I guess the former case."
    > >
    > > My response:
    > >
    > > "I thought this was what an XRUN was, when the handling of the irq is
    > > delayed more than the buffer size. Sometimes these messages are
    > > associated with XRUNs, sometimes not."
    > >
    > > Haven't heard back yet.
    > >
    > > Is it possible that I am simply pushing my hardware past its limits?
    > > Keep in mind this is a 600Mhz C3 processor.
    >
    > I think yes. 32 frames / 44.1kHz = 0.725 ms.
    >

    I am runnign at 48kHz so it's actually 0.666 ms. But, the average
    response is quite good, 20-30 microseconds. The spikes are infrequent
    enought that I think this is achievable. If not then 64 frames
    definitely is.

    So what is the difference between the above message and an XRUN? I
    thought an XRUN occurred when the handling of the IRQ is delayed more
    than the buffer size.

    Lee

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:4.367 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site