[wdmaudiodev] Re: Already got cool latency figures - how about everyone else?
- From: "Van Mieghem, Dirk" <dvm@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "'wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 19:18:26 +0100
Hi Tom,
> I've been using smaller buffers with WaveCyclic with no unusual
> problems. Granted, they don't work reliably at very low latencies, but I
> thought that was my old, slow system.
>
> Can this have dire consequences I'm not aware of?
It's been a while since I used WaveCyclic. My first driver used it because I
liked the straightforward approach of WaveCyclic compared to the comlicated
way WavePCI deals with buffers. IMO, scatter/gather techniques are too much
overhead while using very small buffers (low latency). I remember that the
WaveCyclic DMA buffer couldn't go below 10ms because PortCls copies the data
in and out of this buffer. PortCls is handling the Allocator Framing to the
application and the miniport can't change this. However, it's possible that
this behavior changed with a Service Pack update.
Dirk
******************
WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
URL to WDMAUDIODEV page:
http://www.wdmaudiodev.de/
Other related posts:
