Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
ping On 10/04/2017 09:50 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: gentle reminder On 09/26/2017 02:35 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the below if you by chance have a minute? Thank you, Oleksandr On 09/19/2017 11:57 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hi, all! We did some work on implementing the idea with feedback events from the backend to the frontend. Please see attached the changes to the existing sndif protocol [1]: 1. Introduced a new event channel from back to front 2. New event with number of bytes played/captured (XENSND_EVT_CUR_POS, to be used for sending snd_pcm_period_elapsed at frontend. Sent in bytes, not frames to make the protocol generic and consistent) 3. New request for playback/capture control (XENSND_OP_TRIGGER) with start/pause/stop/resume sub-ops. The implementation we have showed that this is sufficient to successfully play/capture w/o using emulated interrupts. Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the changes and confirm that these are ok to be upstreamed to the sndif protocol and are enough for the frontend driver we want to upstream (we have it implemented, just need to make sure the general approach is accepted by the ALSA community). Thank you very much for your time, Oleksandr Andrushchenko Oleksandr Grytsov [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h?h=v4.14-rc1 On 09/12/2017 10:52 AM, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not acceptable Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to disk, would you?) and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from Dom0 to DomU. In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt (mostly because our backend is a user space application). As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be written, and always allow to query the current position. [...] ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize Dom0-DomU. If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation upstreamed as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably contribute? I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the solution would feel. As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency would then be 'just' an optimization. Regards, Clemens Definitely feedback from the backend side is required. Currently we are working on synchronized version on the backend and frontend side. We will be back once we have the solution. Thanks.
Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
gentle reminder On 09/26/2017 02:35 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the below if you by chance have a minute? Thank you, Oleksandr On 09/19/2017 11:57 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hi, all! We did some work on implementing the idea with feedback events from the backend to the frontend. Please see attached the changes to the existing sndif protocol [1]: 1. Introduced a new event channel from back to front 2. New event with number of bytes played/captured (XENSND_EVT_CUR_POS, to be used for sending snd_pcm_period_elapsed at frontend. Sent in bytes, not frames to make the protocol generic and consistent) 3. New request for playback/capture control (XENSND_OP_TRIGGER) with start/pause/stop/resume sub-ops. The implementation we have showed that this is sufficient to successfully play/capture w/o using emulated interrupts. Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the changes and confirm that these are ok to be upstreamed to the sndif protocol and are enough for the frontend driver we want to upstream (we have it implemented, just need to make sure the general approach is accepted by the ALSA community). Thank you very much for your time, Oleksandr Andrushchenko Oleksandr Grytsov [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h?h=v4.14-rc1 On 09/12/2017 10:52 AM, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not acceptable Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to disk, would you?) and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from Dom0 to DomU. In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt (mostly because our backend is a user space application). As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be written, and always allow to query the current position. [...] ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize Dom0-DomU. If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation upstreamed as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably contribute? I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the solution would feel. As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency would then be 'just' an optimization. Regards, Clemens Definitely feedback from the backend side is required. Currently we are working on synchronized version on the backend and frontend side. We will be back once we have the solution. Thanks.
Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the below if you by chance have a minute? Thank you, Oleksandr On 09/19/2017 11:57 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: Hi, all! We did some work on implementing the idea with feedback events from the backend to the frontend. Please see attached the changes to the existing sndif protocol [1]: 1. Introduced a new event channel from back to front 2. New event with number of bytes played/captured (XENSND_EVT_CUR_POS, to be used for sending snd_pcm_period_elapsed at frontend. Sent in bytes, not frames to make the protocol generic and consistent) 3. New request for playback/capture control (XENSND_OP_TRIGGER) with start/pause/stop/resume sub-ops. The implementation we have showed that this is sufficient to successfully play/capture w/o using emulated interrupts. Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the changes and confirm that these are ok to be upstreamed to the sndif protocol and are enough for the frontend driver we want to upstream (we have it implemented, just need to make sure the general approach is accepted by the ALSA community). Thank you very much for your time, Oleksandr Andrushchenko Oleksandr Grytsov [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h?h=v4.14-rc1 On 09/12/2017 10:52 AM, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not acceptable Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to disk, would you?) and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from Dom0 to DomU. In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt (mostly because our backend is a user space application). As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be written, and always allow to query the current position. [...] ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize Dom0-DomU. If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation upstreamed as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably contribute? I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the solution would feel. As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency would then be 'just' an optimization. Regards, Clemens Definitely feedback from the backend side is required. Currently we are working on synchronized version on the backend and frontend side. We will be back once we have the solution. Thanks.
Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
Hi, all! We did some work on implementing the idea with feedback events from the backend to the frontend. Please see attached the changes to the existing sndif protocol [1]: 1. Introduced a new event channel from back to front 2. New event with number of bytes played/captured (XENSND_EVT_CUR_POS, to be used for sending snd_pcm_period_elapsed at frontend. Sent in bytes, not frames to make the protocol generic and consistent) 3. New request for playback/capture control (XENSND_OP_TRIGGER) with start/pause/stop/resume sub-ops. The implementation we have showed that this is sufficient to successfully play/capture w/o using emulated interrupts. Clemens, Sakamoto-san, could you please review the changes and confirm that these are ok to be upstreamed to the sndif protocol and are enough for the frontend driver we want to upstream (we have it implemented, just need to make sure the general approach is accepted by the ALSA community). Thank you very much for your time, Oleksandr Andrushchenko Oleksandr Grytsov [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h?h=v4.14-rc1 On 09/12/2017 10:52 AM, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote: On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not acceptable Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to disk, would you?) and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from Dom0 to DomU. In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt (mostly because our backend is a user space application). As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be written, and always allow to query the current position. [...] ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize Dom0-DomU. If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation upstreamed as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably contribute? I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the solution would feel. As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency would then be 'just' an optimization. Regards, Clemens Definitely feedback from the backend side is required. Currently we are working on synchronized version on the backend and frontend side. We will be back once we have the solution. Thanks. diff --git a/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h b/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h index 5c918276835e..763a3f0164f4 100644 --- a/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h +++ b/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h @@ -38,6 +38,13 @@ /* ** + * Protocol version + ** + */ +#define XENDISPL_PROTOCOL_VERSION "2" + +/* + ** * Feature and Parameter Negotiation ** * @@ -104,8 +111,10 @@ * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/sample-formats = "s8,u8" * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/unique-id = "0" * - * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/ring-ref = "386" - * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/event-channel = "15" + * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/req-ring-ref = "386" + * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/req-event-channel = "15" + * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/evt-ring-ref = "1386" + * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/0/evt-event-channel = "215" * *-- Stream 1, capture * @@ -113,8 +122,10 @@ * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/1/channels-max = "2" * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/1/unique-id = "1" * - * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/1/ring-ref = "384" - * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/1/event-channel = "13" + * /local/domain/1/device/vsnd/0/0/1/req-ring-r
Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not acceptable > > Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the > exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal > rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. > Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it > works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA > buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. > > It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the > stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA > is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to > disk, would you?) > and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from Dom0 to DomU. In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt (mostly because our backend is a user space application). > > As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() > or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be > written, and always allow to query the current position. > >> [...] >> ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize >> Dom0-DomU. >> If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA >> frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation >> upstreamed >> as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? >> This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably >> contribute? > > I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I > do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the > solution would feel. > > As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper > synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency > would then be 'just' an optimization. > > > Regards, > Clemens Definitely feedback from the backend side is required. Currently we are working on synchronized version on the backend and frontend side. We will be back once we have the solution. Thanks.
Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND1 00/12] ALSA: vsnd: Add Xen para-virtualized frontend driver
Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>> We understand that emulated interrupt on the frontend side is completely not >>> acceptable Allow me to expand on that: Proper synchronization requires that the exact position is communicated, not estimated. Just because the nominal rate of the stream is known does not imply that you know the actual rate. Forget for the moment that there even is a nominal rate; assume that it works like, e.g., a storage controller, and that you can know that a DMA buffer was consumed by the device only after it has told you. It's possible and likely that there is a latency when reporting the stream position, but that is still better than guessing what the DMA is doing. (You would never just try to guess when writing data to disk, would you?) >>> and definitely we need to provide some feedback mechanism from >>> Dom0 to DomU. >>> >>> In our case it is technically impossible to provide precise period interrupt >>> (mostly because our backend is a user space application). As far as I can see, all audio APIs (ALSA, PulseAudio, etc.) have poll() or callbacks or similar mechanisms to inform you when new data can be written, and always allow to query the current position. > [...] > ok, so the main concern here is that we cannot properly synchronize Dom0-DomU. > If we put this apart for a second are there any other concerns on having ALSA > frontend driver? If not, can we have the driver with timer implementation > upstreamed > as experimental until we have some acceptable synchronization solution? > This will allow broader audience to try and feel the solution and probably > contribute? I doubt that the driver architecture will stay completely the same, so I do not think that this experimental driver would demonstrate how the solution would feel. As the first step, I would suggest creating a driver with proper synchronization, even if it has high latency. Reducing the latency would then be 'just' an optimization. Regards, Clemens
