Linux Sound subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benno Senoner <sbenno@gardena.net>
To: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected 1-1.5ms
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:34:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-sound-93568883025986@msgid-missing> (raw)

Hi folks,

I finished my MIDI performance tests:  ( DISAPPOINTING  :-(  )

I did basically the following:
connected the external MIDI-out of my AWE64 to the MIDI-in port with a MIDI
cable.
Then I wrote a little app which opens the midi device in O_RDWR mode
and then does
time1=gettime() 
- write 3 bytes to the midi device ( to simulate a Note-on cmd)
- read back the data
time2=gettime()
prints out the timediff

I tested both a 2.2.5 and a 2.2.10 kernel , same results.

I wrote this to measure the MIDI output-to-input delay.
I tried both with blocking I/O and non-blocking I/O.
Unfortunately I get bad values in both modes:
about 11.5ms , and this is exactly the MIDI transfer time (1.3ms) plus
10ms = 1 jiffie.
If I run the test on a HZ\x1000 kernel I get about 2ms.

11ms is not acceptable to implement realtime MIDI processing apps,
like soft-synths, virtual midi-thru boxes (or via sequencers), midi-filters etc.


Does anyone know if there is a way to get the values down to the effective
transfer time. ?

 ( are there lowlatency serial flags similar to those of the
regular serial devices ?)

You can get my mididelay benchmark here:

http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio/mididelay0.1.tgz

Do you get better values on ALSA ?

comments ?

PS: Paul: I was wrong about not being able to open the midi device in
O_NONBLOCK.


regards,
Benno.

Benno Senoner
E-Mail: sbenno@gardena.net
Linux scheduling latency benchmarks
http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio

             reply	other threads:[~1999-08-26 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-08-26 17:34 Benno Senoner [this message]
1999-08-26 18:42 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected Jaroslav Kysela
1999-08-26 19:38 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected 1-1.5ms Benno Senoner
1999-08-26 20:20 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected Alan Cox
1999-08-26 20:41 ` Alan Cox
1999-08-26 20:42 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected 1-1.5ms Benno Senoner
1999-08-26 20:51 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected Jaroslav Kysela
1999-08-26 21:04 ` Alan Cox
1999-08-26 21:53 ` Benno Senoner
1999-09-18 21:26 ` Bad MIDI performance : 10ms latency instead of the expected 1-1.5ms Peter Enderborg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=marc-linux-sound-93568883025986@msgid-missing \
    --to=sbenno@gardena.net \
    --cc=linux-sound@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox