On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:20:41 +0200 fons adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The price for this is afaik an extra period worth of latency. I'm not > > sure this is the way to go. Sure it makes handling of devices easier > > that do not generate irq's like pci soundcards do (all this USB and > > IEEE1394 stuff), but isn't the price too high? > > Why should this take a extra period of latency ? Ah, i remembered slightly incorrectly. Thanks Paul, for setting me straight in #ardour. The thing is that the DLL based client thread wakeup has the ever so slight possibility to do its thing too early. Thus coreaudio waits a bit more (the "safety offset"). It seems this safety offset is driver specific but usually ranges from 64 to 32 frames (i have no definite source for this, just a bit of googling). And with a sufficiently low period size used this accounts for pretty much an extra period of latency.. Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
