W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: New proposal for fixing race conditions

From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:04:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CANTur_7XH7Dxh6SfOuxYiwjpteqYEFJ4YfGfW+Y0uNGGmch+FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com>, Russell McClellan <russell@motu.com>, WG <public-audio@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you're talking about pre-rendering sound into an AudioBuffer (in a
>>> way that can't be done using an OfflineAudioContext), I doubt that memcpy
>>> will do much harm. Again (if this is the case), could you please provide an
>>> exanple?
>>>
>>
>> OK.  I want to load an audio file, perform some custom analysis on it
>> (e.g. determine average volume), perform some custom (offline) processing
>> on the buffer based on that analysis (e.g. soft limiting), and then play
>> the resulting buffer.
>>
>
> And I can add two more realistic use cases here:
>
> * at any stage analyze and display the resulting buffer as a waveform on
> the screen for an audio editor
> * generate AudioBuffer PCM data directly in JavaScript which then gets
> played back using an AudioBufferSourceNode
>
> Being required to copy large buffers of data is very inefficient.
>


With Robert's proposal, all three of these use cases can be achieved
without a single memcpy.  The only case in which his proposal for
AudioBuffer would memcpy is if you read back the contents of the buffer
after connecting it to an AudioBufferSourceNode.  So as a work-around, you
can do that after the expensive part of all three of these use cases has
been finished.

--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>



>
>> If I understand it, under ROC's original proposal, this would result in
>> the the entire buffer being copied one extra time (other than the initial
>> AudioBuffer creation by decodeAudioData), under Jer's recent proposal I
>> would have to copy it twice.  "I doubt that memcpy will do much harm" is a
>> bit of an odd statement in favor of - as you yourself said, I don't think
>> that "it's usually not a problem" is a strong enough argument.  I don't see
>> the inherent raciness as a shortcoming we have to paper over; this isn't a
>> design flaw, it's a memory-efficient design.  The audio system should have
>> efficient access to audio buffers, and it needs to function in a decoupled
>> way in order to provide glitch-free audio when at all possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 22:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:23 UTC