- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:13:23 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22723 --- Comment #14 from Srikumar Subramanian (Kumar) <srikumarks@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > ... > > Not entirely. With the realtime script processor nodes, I've needed a buffer > > size of at least 1024 to avoid glitches due to UI events. Since that amounts > > to 23ms, I thought I was being rather optimistic in picking 4ms :) > > There's a difference between a good "safe" buffer size for real-time > operation such as 1024 or 2048 to avoid glitches, since that's based on > worst case performance of any single .onaudioprocess invocation > > compared with a non-realtime (perhaps and hopefully often faster than > real-time), we don't have to worry about "safe" sizes, and can do the > synchronization as fast or slow as it needs to be. Although individual > calls to .onaudioprocess may take longer, the average time it takes to hop > from the real-time to the main thread will be much less than 4ms I believe. Sure. Understood. I just did a quick-n-dirty estimate of what this rate can be. It looks like the average time can be 0.5ms in Chrome. Gist here - https://gist.github.com/srikumarks/6043702 Btw the offline processing doesn't need to be in a real-time thread and probably shouldn't be, since it is running "as fast as it can". It should perhaps be in the same class as the threads used by web workers. > Hopefully, soon we can get a real-world setup going along with trace points > in Chrome to play with. Looking forward to it! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 03:13:25 UTC