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

Re: Audio Workers - please review

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:21:04 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbu+_UZQ2jOJ02z2-cOy6261Mhi8CWWkE8cghPdQF9SoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Right.

"Adding latency" that shifts the timeline of some nodes relative to others
is clearly unacceptable.

"Adding latency" that shifts the output of the entire graph to be a little
later is clearly acceptable (though often undesirable).

Here's a few situations where I think auto-parallelization has a good
chance to win:
1) OfflineAudioContexts
2) When the inherent latency of system audio callbacks gives us time to
synchronize multiple threads without adding latency. Depending on hardware,
3ms callback periods probably don't give us enough time, but 20ms could be
enough time.
3) When the audio graph is so complex that single-threaded processing can't
keep up with real time. Better to parallelize and add latency than underrun.

Rob
-- 
oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
owohooo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o
oioso
oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo
owohooo
osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro
ooofo
otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 22:21:32 UTC

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