W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Call for Consensus: retire current ScriptProcessorNode design & AudioWorker proposal

From: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:57:14 -0400
Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2105AD8E-1970-47BA-A635-55FC81F6468A@noteflight.com>
To: "Srikumar K. S." <srikumarks@gmail.com>

On Aug 14, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Srikumar K. S. <srikumarks@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some time ago, Chris Rogers estimated that he can push about 20000 messages a second max (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013JulSep/0233.html). The time available to compute a 128 sample block is about 2.5ms. If Chris’s estimate is indeed the max performance we can get, these message passes are eating away about 2% of the time available for each script node instantiated. If you want to leave say 75% of the time available to actual signal calculations, you can at most instantiate about a dozen script nodes I think. Since the message passing needed is now synchronous, it seems to me to be both possible as well as useful to have this overhead taken out.

Chris W should confirm, but I don’t think this overhead applies to the new design at all. There is no “message passing” associated with onaudioprocess in the new proposal as each event dispatch is a synchronous invocation within the audio thread.

…Joe

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

Noteflight LLC
Boston, Mass.
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere"
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 16:57:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:14 UTC