From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guilherme Longo Subject: performance between access mothods! Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:03:23 -0300 Message-ID: <4A50968B.6030201@gmail.com> References: <1246761001-21982-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <20090705114122.GA5334@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.144]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FA524377 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:03:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so1557994qwf.56 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:03:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090705114122.GA5334@sirena.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi all! I came across a doubt regarding the the access mode between application and PCM device. It is a hardware parameter related property and there are 5 different types available: SND_PCM_ACCESS_MMAP_INTERLEAVED SND_PCM_ACCESS_MMAP_NONINTERLEAVED SND_PCM_ACCESS_MMAP_COMPLEX SND_PCM_ACCESS_RW_INTERLEAVED SND_PCM_ACCESS_RW_NONINTERLEAVED taking in account that these first 3 parameters has direct communication with the memory, that means a higher speed operation? And the fact of the interleaved has all the samples mixed together , makes any difference in performance in comparison to the noninterleaved that has samples stored on different buffers? Thanks in advanced