[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 2/2] loopback: Track and use average adjust time

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Sun, 2017-08-13 at 13:00 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 04.08.2017 15:37, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-17 at 21:37 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
> > > @@ -327,11 +335,20 @@ static void adjust_rates(struct userdata *u) {
> > >       }
> > >   
> > >       /* Allow one underrun per hour */
> > > -    if (u->iteration_counter * u->adjust_time / PA_USEC_PER_SEC / 3600 > run_hours) {
> > > +    if (u->iteration_counter * u->real_adjust_time / PA_USEC_PER_SEC / 3600 > run_hours) {
> > >           u->underrun_counter = PA_CLIP_SUB(u->underrun_counter, 1u);
> > >           pa_log_info("Underrun counter: %u", u->underrun_counter);
> > >       }
> > >   
> > > +    /* Calculate real adjust time */
> > > +    now = pa_rtclock_now();
> > > +    if (!u->source_sink_changed) {
> > > +        u->adjust_counter++;
> > > +        u->real_adjust_time_sum += now - u->adjust_time_stamp;
> > > +        u->real_adjust_time = u->real_adjust_time_sum / u->adjust_counter;
> > > +    }
> > > +    u->adjust_time_stamp = now;
> > > +
> > >       /* Rates and latencies*/
> > >       old_rate = u->sink_input->sample_spec.rate;
> > >       base_rate = u->source_output->sample_spec.rate;
> > > @@ -364,7 +381,9 @@ static void adjust_rates(struct userdata *u) {
> > >       pa_log_debug("Loopback latency at base rate is %0.2f ms", (double)latency_at_optimum_rate / PA_USEC_PER_MSEC);
> > >   
> > >       /* Calculate new rate */
> > > -    new_rate = rate_controller(base_rate, u->adjust_time, latency_difference);
> > > +    new_rate = rate_controller(base_rate, u->real_adjust_time, latency_difference);
> > > +
> > > +    u->source_sink_changed = false;
> > 
> > This "source_sink_changed = false" assignment would be better right
> > after the code that checks its value, at least based on this patch
> > alone. But maybe later patches use this variable too in a way that
> > makes this suggestion less good?
> > 
> > Otherwise looks fine.
> > 
> 
> Yes, the variable is later user within rate_controller(). Also there will be
> other variables that indicate state changes between two calls of
> adjust_rate() (for example if the latency offset changed). I'll push the 
> patch
> to next as is if you have no objection.

Go ahead, no objections.

-- 
Tanu

https://www.patreon.com/tanuk