Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

[Bodo Eggert]

Patrizio Bassi <patrizio.bassi@gmail.com> wrote:
> starting from 2.6.0 (2 years ago) i have the following bug.

> link: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2579
> and https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=230
> 
> fast summary:
> when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
> file)
> i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more chicks
> and ZZZZ noises happen.

Maybe you just need to tune down unused and non-connected inputs in the
mixer, especially microphone? Happened to me once.
-- 
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

[Patrizio Bassi]

Mike Fowler ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Ray Lee wrote:
> 
>> On 10/31/05, Patrizio Bassi <patrizio.bassi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> starting from 2.6.0 (2 years ago) i have the following bug.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the problem probably started before then.
>>
>>
>>> link: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2579
>>
>>
>>
>>> Please fix that...2 years' bug!
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking as a programmer, that's not a lot to go off of to find the
>> bug. I think everyone would agree it's a bug, but we'll need more help
>> from you.
>>
>>
>>> fast summary:
>>> when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
>>> file) i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more
>>> chicks
>>> and ZZZZ noises happen.
>>
>>
> 
> This to me sounds more like an interference issue, something I have seen
> on many laptops (I used to repair them in a previous incarnation). It is
> often referred to as "the 50Hz/60Hz hum" or the "ground loop" see any of
> these:
> 
> -http://www.pcmus.com/power-grounding.htm
> -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29
> 

not hardware related, as it works with 2.4 and windows

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

[Patrizio Bassi]

Ray Lee ha scritto:
> On 10/31/05, Patrizio Bassi <patrizio.bassi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>starting from 2.6.0 (2 years ago) i have the following bug.
> 
> 
> Well, the problem probably started before then.
> 
> 
>>link: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2579
> 
> 
>>Please fix that...2 years' bug!
> 
> 
> Speaking as a programmer, that's not a lot to go off of to find the
> bug. I think everyone would agree it's a bug, but we'll need more help
> from you.
> 
> 
>>fast summary:
>>when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
>>file) i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more chicks
>>and ZZZZ noises happen.
> 
> 
> Does hdparm -i (or -I) show differences between the 2.4 kernels and
> 2.6? 2.6 has new IDE drivers, and so perhaps your system isn't using
> the best driver any more.
> 
> You may also want to compare lspci -vv of your IDE controller and
> sound card between 2.4 and 2.6, and see if there are any differences.
> 
> No guarantees, but this is where you'd start.
> 
> 
>>Ready to test any patch/solution.
> 
> 
> Try that. If nothing obvious appears in the examination, you may want
> to try the 2.6.14-rt1 patchset from Ingo Molnar. It's designed to
> reduce latency in the kernel, but also has a latency tracer that may
> be particularly useful for your problem. (Assuming it's a latency
> issue, and not a hardware misconfiguration due to 2.6 doing something
> wrong.)
> 
> Ray

actually i don't have any more 2.4 kernels due to some problems with
other devices.

however i remember i checked that and it was pretty the same

i know i gave you all few infos, but, ask me and i'll try more.

i have an intel bx440 chipset, udma33.

kernel is perfectly tuned.

i notice that with dma disabled it works much better.
problem happens with hda/hdc, so both ide channels.




hdparm -i /dev/hda

/dev/hda:

 Model=IBM-DTLA-307030, FwRev=TX4OA50C, SerialNo=YKDYKV9J094
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=40
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=60036480
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes:  pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes:  mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 *udma2
 AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
 Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-5 T13 1321D revision 1:

 * signifies the current active mode

 hdparm -i /dev/hdc

/dev/hdc:

 Model=IC35L060AVV207-0, FwRev=V22OA63A, SerialNo=VNVB07G2RJ2X4M
 Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
 RawCHS=16383/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=52
 BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1821kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
 CurCHS=16383/16/63, CurSects=16514064, LBA=yes, LBAsects=120103200
 IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:120}
 PIO modes:  pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
 DMA modes:  mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
 UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 *udma2
 AdvancedPM=yes: disabled (255) WriteCache=enabled
 Drive conforms to: ATA/ATAPI-6 T13 1410D revision 3a:

 * signifies the current active mode

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

[Ray Lee]

On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 18:04 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> > On 10/31/05, Patrizio Bassi <patrizio.bassi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>starting from 2.6.0 (2 years ago) i have the following bug.
> >>link: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2579

> >>fast summary:
> >>when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
> >>file) i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more chicks
> >>and ZZZZ noises happen.
> > 
> > Does hdparm -i (or -I) show differences between the 2.4 kernels and
> > 2.6? 2.6 has new IDE drivers, and so perhaps your system isn't using
> > the best driver any more.
> > 
> > You may also want to compare lspci -vv of your IDE controller and
> > sound card between 2.4 and 2.6, and see if there are any differences.
> > 
> > No guarantees, but this is where you'd start.
> > 
> > 
> >>Ready to test any patch/solution.
> > 
> > 
> > Try that. If nothing obvious appears in the examination, you may want
> > to try the 2.6.14-rt1 patchset from Ingo Molnar. It's designed to
> > reduce latency in the kernel, but also has a latency tracer that may
> > be particularly useful for your problem. (Assuming it's a latency
> > issue, and not a hardware misconfiguration due to 2.6 doing something
> > wrong.)
> > 
> > Ray
> 
> actually i don't have any more 2.4 kernels due to some problems with
> other devices.

I'd suggest installing one and at minimum booting it to single user mode
to run some tests. If 2.4 works great, then it's worthwhile to find out
what it's getting right that 2.6 is getting wrong. The only way to find
that out is to compare the two.

> however i remember i checked that and it was pretty the same

Well, I barely trust my own memory in general, so I'd suggest that we
check. Humor me. This is the standard way to find out where a problem
is. Check the good, check the bad, compare the two.

> kernel is perfectly tuned.

<?> How do you know?

> i notice that with dma disabled it works much better.
> problem happens with hda/hdc, so both ide channels.

> hdparm -i /dev/hda

It'd be more useful to see hdparm 2.4 versus 2.6, so we can see if
there's any difference. If we don't see the 2.4 version, then we can't
tell if this is something worthwhile to tweak. Does that make sense? If
they are set the same between both 2.4 and 2.6, then we know we can rule
the hard drive settings out as the source of the problem.

>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1916kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
>  BuffType=DualPortCache, BuffSize=1821kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off

MultiSect is off on both, can you turn that on and see if that makes a
difference? Without multisect set on (and set to 16), your hard drives
are transferring one sector per interrupt, instead of a max of 16. This
makes for a lot more interrupts on the system, and might be the source
of the problem.

If that doesn't change anything, you may also try what Mike Fowler
hinted at, and recompile your kernel with Hz set to 100 instead of the
default 250. As well as trying the RT patchset and seeing if that shows
any sources of problems.

Ray

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems

[Patrizio Bassi]

Lee Revell ha scritto:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:30 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> 
>>starting from 2.6.0 (2 years ago) i have the following bug.
>>
>>link: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2579
>>and https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/view.php?id=230
>>
>>fast summary:
>>when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
>>file)
>>i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more chicks
>>and ZZZZ noises happen.
>>
>>linux 2.4.x and windows has no problems, perfect.
>>tried module/standalone alsa drivers.
> 
> 
> Your problem is a "singing capacitor", caused by cheap motherboard
> components.  The problem appeared in 2.6.0 because that's when the timer
> frequency changed from 100HZ to 1000HZ.
> 
> Starting with 2.6.14 you can work around this by compiling with HZ set
> to 250 or 100.  But it's fundamentally a hardware problem.
> 
> Lee

I have an Asus P2B-F, it should be a value board and not a cheap one.

i have 250hz and it still happens.

i'll check with 100, even if i see it's suggested for server and not
desktop (my usage)

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Patrizio Bassi]

Tomasz Torcz ha scritto:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:30:48PM +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> 
>>when playing audio and using a bit the harddisk (i.e. md5sum of a 200mb
>>file)
>>i hear noises, related to disk activity. more hd is used, more chicks
>>and ZZZZ noises happen.
>>
>>linux 2.4.x and windows has no problems, perfect.
> 
> 
>  I remeber similar problems with es1370 and OSS/ALSA driver. OSS were
> fine, ALSA produced noise.
>  It turned to be PCI latency timer issues. OSS driver changed it's value
> to working good values. ALSA didn't touch latency timer, and during hard
> disk activity sound stuttered.
>  Got rid of problem by running setpci -d CARD:ID latency_timer=40


seems now i got it **pretty** fixed.

what i did:
1) updated kernel to 2.6.14-git4
2) setted 100Hz instead of 250
3) setted latency to 0x40 (64) instead of old 0x20 (32)
4) disabled pci 2.1 in my bios.

i summed all solutions proposed by you all.

it seems much much better, even if problem is not completly disappeared.
i still get some ZzZ sounds, but they're so few i can declare problem fixed.

i'm gonna set fixed status to kernel and alsa bugzilla too.

Next step will be trying to get back to 250hz.

Thanks for all your help

Patrizio Bassi

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Patrizio Bassi]

Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto:

> Since you're going to 250 Hz.  Please, if you would, see if you can
> tell any performance change and report that as well.  I'm more than a
> little skeptical that you'll notice.  BTW: Your battery life should be
> a little better at 100 Hz also.
>
sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower.
i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference.
i can't estimate it mmm...
i'll say no more that 5-8%.
but i don't know where i'm gaining speed..

however i'm not using battery, this is not laptop so i can't report  that.

i'm sorry.

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Lee Revell]

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:18 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto:
> 
> > Since you're going to 250 Hz.  Please, if you would, see if you can
> > tell any performance change and report that as well.  I'm more than a
> > little skeptical that you'll notice.  BTW: Your battery life should be
> > a little better at 100 Hz also.
> >
> sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower.
> i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference.
> i can't estimate it mmm...
> i'll say no more that 5-8%.
> but i don't know where i'm gaining speed..

Um, wasn't a consensus reached at OLS two years ago that the target for
desktop responsiveness would be 1ms which is impossible with HZ=100 or
250?

Lee

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Bill Davidsen]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:18 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> 
>>Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>>Since you're going to 250 Hz.  Please, if you would, see if you can
>>>tell any performance change and report that as well.  I'm more than a
>>>little skeptical that you'll notice.  BTW: Your battery life should be
>>>a little better at 100 Hz also.
>>>
>>
>>sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower.
>>i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference.
>>i can't estimate it mmm...
>>i'll say no more that 5-8%.
>>but i don't know where i'm gaining speed..
> 
> 
> Um, wasn't a consensus reached at OLS two years ago that the target for
> desktop responsiveness would be 1ms which is impossible with HZ=100 or
> 250?

Go back and reread the thread in the archives. The short answer is that 
he who controls the code controls the decisions. I just fix it 
everywhere, since 250 is too fast for optimal battery life, too slow for 
optimal response or multimedia, and not optimal for any server 
application I run (usenet, dns, mail, http, firewall).

A perfect compromise is one which makes everyone reasonably happy; this 
is like the XOR of that, it leaves everyone slightly dissatisfied. ;-)

I'm convinced that Linus choose this value to make everyone slightly 
unhappy, so development of various variable rate and tick skipping 
projects would continue. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have 
happened :-(

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Kyle Moffett]

On Nov 1, 2005, at 16:44:42, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Go back and reread the thread in the archives. The short answer is  
> that he who controls the code controls the decisions. I just fix it  
> everywhere, since 250 is too fast for optimal battery life, too  
> slow for optimal response or multimedia, and not optimal for any  
> server application I run (usenet, dns, mail, http, firewall).
>
> A perfect compromise is one which makes everyone reasonably happy;  
> this is like the XOR of that, it leaves everyone slightly  
> dissatisfied. ;-)
>
> I'm convinced that Linus choose this value to make everyone  
> slightly unhappy, so development of various variable rate and tick  
> skipping projects would continue. Unfortunately that doesn't seem  
> to have happened :-(

No, I think it's been happening, it's just that said developers are  
still fixing the copious bugs in the various kernel concepts of  
"time".  IIRC John Stultz' rework is approaching completion, and when  
that goes in it makes life a lot easier for the various dyntick and  
variable tick projects.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things,  
because that would also stop them from doing clever things.
   -- Doug Gwyn