Re: (re)use and (re)definition of snd_pcm_hw_params->fifo_size for 'jumpy DMA'

Takashi Iwai
2026-03-30T16:39:56Z

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 17:15:38 +0200,
Péter Ujfalusi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 30/03/2026 17:27, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/5313
> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/4489
> >
> > Sorry to be late in the game as I was off in the last weeks, and
> > slowly catching up. So, I'm reading this thread from the beginning,
> > and wondering what is needed from user-space API POV.
>
> This discussion is stretches back a decade or so, few weeks do not matter ;)
>
> > First off, we do already have a way to report a fine-grained playback
> > pointer as "delay" even in jumpy hw_ptr updates as long as the driver
> > supports it;
>
> The delay reporting with the jumpy hw_ptr works great, most application
> on Linux uses it (mplayer, mpv, vlc, pipewire, pulseaudio, etc).
> Chromium's alsa_conformance ironically did not, but it is for some times
> now:
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/audiotest/+/eccd8be776d45a2e3b3006d74f174ff216cb01d8%5E%21/#F0
>
> > e.g. a few drivers for hardware with packet-based
> > transfers like USB-audio support that mode. Doesn't it suffice for
> > your need?
>
> There is no real way to express the jumpy hw_ptr, it is not really
> packet mode (while in some sense it is, but rather not) and the BATCH
> mode certainly not a fit.
>
> > And, if a more different parameter is required and defined, how an
> > application can use it? An application can read/write PCM parameters,
> > write PCM data (either via mmap or write/ioctl), and sleep/wakeup via
> > poll() -- basically that's all. Would the new parameter influence on
> > the poll wakeup behavior? Or who controls in which way?
>
> The main target at the moment is pipewire in Linux, it uses mmap and
> timer (no period wakeup) to process audio in the most efficient way. It
> can fall back to non mmap and poll, but that comes with lots of drawback
> in power consumption and CPU use.
>
> We have the default configuration of SOF working now fine with it's
> jumpy-DMA, which is:
> 4ms host facing buffer inside of DSP and 1ms DMA bursts every 1ms.
> This translates:
> when audio starts, before 1ms elapsed the hw_ptr will be pointing to the
> sample at 5ms, 4ms has been sent to the DSP, when 1ms elapsed from the
> playback, the hw_ptr is at 6ms, you can say that it is 4ms ahead of the
> playback progress viewed in the host facing buffer of the DSP.
> But, this 4ms is not the delay, the delay is a different thing, which
> includes the 4ms plus processing path within the DSP.
>
> The issues at hand is that we need to tell the applications about this
> so they can work out how to manage the mmaped area.
> They must provide enough data on start - 1ms is not enough as the DMA
> jumps 4ms, 4ms is likely not enough, unless the application can be sure
> it can provide more data with 1ms - when the DMA will move 1ms ahead.
>
> I have other examples in later mails for different configurations.
>
> This is not really about delay, it is not really fits into BATCH mode
> either.

OK, then I'd say that the existing fifo_size doesn't fit fully for
this kind of stuff. e.g. if a device allows a different queue size,
it should be configurable via hw_params.

Takashi