linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago board

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGvk5PqGi7cXthLHFi4NyypxFiGnoHvD9vp+5nJdH-_VkVvcKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:09:58 +0800
From:   Yu-Hsuan Hsu <yuhsuan@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sam McNally <sammc@...omium.org>,
        "yuhsuan@...gle.com" <yuhsuan@...gle.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Stuart <daniel.stuart14@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>,
        Damian van Soelen <dj.vsoelen@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago board

Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.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.
1. 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
...

2. 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)

3. 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.)

4. 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