Re: [PATCH] [media] uvcvideo: Fix clock param realtime setting

2014-04-01 Thread Olivier Langlois
Hi Laurent, On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 15:49 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Sunday 30 March 2014 00:23:01 Olivier Langlois wrote: > > Hi Laurent, > > > > > > Yes. ffmpeg uses wall clock time to create timestamps for audio packets > > &

Re: [PATCH] [media] uvcvideo: Fix clock param realtime setting

2014-03-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
Hi Laurent, > > Yes. ffmpeg uses wall clock time to create timestamps for audio packets from > > ALSA device. > > OK. I suppose I shouldn't drop support for the realtime clock like I wanted > to > then :-) > > > There is a bug in ffmpeg describing problems to synchronize audio and > > the vid

Re: [PATCH] [media] uvcvideo: Fix clock param realtime setting

2014-03-28 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > > > > Before applying this, I'm curious, do you have a use case for realtime > > > time stamps ? > > > > Yes. ffmpeg uses wall clock time to create timestamps for audio packets from > > ALSA device. > > OK. I suppose I shouldn't drop support for the realtime clock like I wanted > to > t

Re: [PATCH] [media] uvcvideo: Fix clock param realtime setting

2014-03-28 Thread Olivier Langlois
Hi Laurent, On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 17:20 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Friday 28 March 2014 01:42:38 Olivier Langlois wrote: > > timestamps in v4l2 buffers returned to userspace are updated in > > uvc_video_clock_upd

[PATCH] [media] uvcvideo: Fix clock param realtime setting

2014-03-27 Thread Olivier Langlois
with ffmpeg: ffmpeg -y -f v4l2 -input_format yuyv422 -video_size 640x480 -framerate 30 -i /dev/video0 \ -f alsa -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 16000 -ac 1 -i default \ -c:v libx264 -preset ultrafast \ -c:a libfdk_aac \ out.mkv and inspecting the v4l2 input starting timestamp. Signed-off-by: Olivier

[PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: rtl8192ce: Fix too long disable of IRQs

2014-01-31 Thread Olivier Langlois
has proven to work is to reenable the irqs during the function rtl92ce_hw_init(). I think that it is safe doing so since the device interrupt will only be enabled after the init function succeed. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois Cc: Stable --- drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/hw.c | 18

[PATCH 2/2] rtlwifi: Fix incorrect return from rtl_ps_enable_nic()

2014-01-31 Thread Olivier Langlois
rtl_ps_enable_nic() is called from loops that will loop until this function returns true or a maximum number of retries is performed. hw_init() returns non-zero on error. In that situation return false to restore the original design intent to retry hw init when it fails. Signed-off-by: Olivier

[PATCH 1/2] rtl8192ce is disabling for too long the irqs

2014-01-30 Thread Olivier Langlois
has proven to work is to reenable the irqs during the function rtl92ce_hw_init(). I think that it is safe doing so since the device interrupt will only be enabled after the init function succeed. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/hw.c | 18

Re: [PATCH] rtl8192ce is disabling the irqs for too long

2014-01-30 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 14:19 -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > On 01/30/2014 12:22 AM, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/ps.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/hw.c | 18 +

[PATCH 2/2] retry hw init when it fails

2014-01-30 Thread Olivier Langlois
rtl_ps_enable_nic() is called from loops that will loop until this function returns true or a maximum number of retries is performed. hw_init() returns non-zero on error. In that situation return false to restore the original design intent to retry hw init when it fails. Signed-off-by: Olivier

[PATCH] rtl8192ce is disabling the irqs for too long

2014-01-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
reenable the irqs during the function rtl92ce_hw_init(). I think that it is safe doing so since the device interrupt will only be enabled after the init function succeed. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/ps.c | 2 +- drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/

Re: [PATCH] Avoid process cputimer state oscillation

2013-11-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
() (posix-timers.c) I believe this misunderstanding may partly explain the current state of the code. On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 14:25 -0500, Olivier Langlois wrote: > When a periodic process timer is fired, a signal is generated. > Rearming the timer, if necessary, will be performed in a secon

[PATCH] Avoid process cputimer state oscillation

2013-11-25 Thread Olivier Langlois
010] cputimer started [ 181.917008] cputimer stopped [ 181.917058] cputimer started [ 181.918009] cputimer stopped [ 181.918029] cputimer started [ 181.919006] cputimer stopped [ 181.919010] cputimer started [ 181.920006] cputimer stopped After: [ 859.722119] cputimer started [

Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC/RFT v2 0/4] ALSA: hda - hdmi: ATI/AMD multi-channel and HBR support

2013-10-08 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > Then please test everything again. I.e. > o speaker-test -D hdmi:CARD=Generic,DEV=0 -c8 -r192000 -F S32_LE > this work fine > o Is there any difference seen > with these, in the beginning/end (i.e. fade-out/in): > speaker-test -D hdmi:CARD=Generic,DEV=0,AES0=0x04 -c2 -r48000 >

Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC/RFT v2 0/4] ALSA: hda - hdmi: ATI/AMD multi-channel and HBR support

2013-10-05 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > > Rear left and rear right channels are flipped. > > Thanks for testing. > > That seems a bit strange, I would've expected everything to be flipped > if there was a bug there. > Anssi, you were right to be suspicious. The bug was in my wiring. > > >> > >> o Contents of /proc/asound/ca

Re: [RFC/RFT v2 0/4] ALSA: hda - hdmi: ATI/AMD multi-channel and HBR support

2013-10-04 Thread Olivier Langlois
Anssi, Your patch has been applied on 3.11.3 > > I'm especially interested in testers with: > > - Older codecs other than 0x1002aa01. My best guess still is that the > new code works on them as well. > o On these I'd like to know if multichannel and the new formats > work, i.e. e.g. >

Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] posix_timers: do not account group_exec_runtime for dying autoreaped tasks

2013-05-06 Thread Olivier Langlois
Frederic, On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 01:18 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:04:09PM -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > > > > Forbids the cputimer to drift ahead of its process clock by > > blocking its update when a tick occurs whil

Re: [PATCH 1/7] posix-cpu-timers: don't account cpu timer after stopped thread runtime accounting

2013-05-06 Thread Olivier Langlois
t; signal->cputimer accounting. > > > > This inconsistency makes POSIX timer wake up too early. This patch fixes it. > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker > > Cc: Ingo Molnar > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra > > Signed-off-by: O

Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix_timers: Defer per process timer stop after timers processing

2013-04-30 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > Maybe the condition around the posix_cpu_timer_schedule() block inside > > cpu_timer_fire() could even be a good candidate for 'unlikely' > > qualifier. > > Well, cpu_timer_fire() is probably not a fast path. So helping branch > prediction there probably won't have much measurable effect i

Re: [PATCH 06/10] posix-cpu-timers: fix wrong timer initialization

2013-04-30 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 23:17 -0400, kosaki.motoh...@gmail.com wrote: > From: KOSAKI Motohiro > > Currently glibc's rt/tst-cputimer1 testcase is spradically fail because > a timer created by timer_create() may fire earlier than it's specified. > > posix_cpu_timer_set() uses "val" as current time f

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 15:09 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (4/29/13 2:54 PM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 14:31 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> (4/29/13 2:20 PM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>&

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 14:31 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (4/29/13 2:20 PM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > >> > >>>> I'm confused. glibc's rt/tst-cputimer1 doesn't have thread exiting code. > >>>> I have > >>>> no

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > >> I'm confused. glibc's rt/tst-cputimer1 doesn't have thread exiting code. I > >> have > >> no seen any issue in this accounting. > > > > glibc launch a helper thread to receive timer signal and will also > > create a new thread upon signal reception when a timer is created with > > sigev_

[PATCH v3 3/3] posix_timers: Correct deltas management for thread group cputimer samples

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
-cputimer1.c 2. There is a race condition hard to fix that the code simply need to acknowledge its presence and workaround. 3. Also, cputimer is initialized to the process clock value minus deltas. This is required for absolute timers. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c | 91

[PATCH v3 2/3] posix_timers: sched API modif required for posix-cpu-timer fix.

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
(). Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- include/linux/kernel_stat.h | 1 + include/linux/sched.h | 5 + kernel/sched/core.c | 22 + kernel/sched/cputime.c | 47 +++-- 4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions

[PATCH v3 1/3] posix_timers: do not account group_exec_runtime for dying autoreaped tasks

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
because they are added to the global process stats located in the signal struct from release_task(). Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 7a33e59..52d7b10

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 13:10 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 01:06 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > (4/27/13 12:40 AM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > > > > > > > Forbids the cputimer to drift ahead of its process clock by > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 02:45 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/4/27 Olivier Langlois : > > > > > > Forbids the cputimer to drift ahead of its process clock by > > blocking its update when a tick occurs while a autoreaping task > > is currently in do_exit()

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 02:25 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (4/27/13 12:41 AM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > > > > Add thread group delta to cpu timer sample when computing a timer > > expiration. > > > > This is mandatory to make sure that the pos

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-29 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 01:06 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (4/27/13 12:40 AM), Olivier Langlois wrote: > > > > > > Forbids the cputimer to drift ahead of its process clock by > > blocking its update when a tick occurs while a autoreaping task > > is currently

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > I did vary HZ from 300 to 1000 HZ, I tried the 3 three different > preemption models. > > With all these combinations, I still have the problem. > Actually, I may have observed more failure with 1000 HZ and CONFIG_PREEMPT=y (low-latency desktop) Also make sure that High resolution timer

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > Also other factors to consider it is are you doing the test on a very > loaded system? What is your platform? > > I have tested it positively on 32 bit, 64 bits build on Atom N450 > > i7 first and second generation system. > > I did vary HZ from 300 to 1000 HZ, I tried the 3 three diffe

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
> 2) tst-cputimer1.c only have CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID test and > don't have any utime, stime tests. > Sorry, I should take a couple minutes break before pressing send to be sure that I have said everything :-) CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID is user space name for kernel space CPUCLOCK_SCHED clock.

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 22:15 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Olivier Langlois > wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> > I need to add that I can only confirm that to be true with > >> > sum_e

[PATCH v2 3/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
sequences. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c | 91 +++ 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c index 8fd709c..10d28cc 100644 --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timer

[PATCH v2 1/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
keep the same pace than the process clock but in fact, what should be done is to speed up the process clock by adding the missing stats to it. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c

[PATCH v2 2/3] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
(). Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- include/linux/kernel_stat.h | 1 + include/linux/sched.h | 5 + kernel/sched/core.c | 22 + kernel/sched/cputime.c | 47 +++-- 4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-26 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > I need to add that I can only confirm that to be true with > > sum_exec_runtime. > > > > To affirm it to be true for stime and utime would require more > > investigation. I didn't look them at all. I was only concerned with > > sum_exec

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-25 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 00:40 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 11:08 -0700, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:38 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro > > wrote: > > >> I feel we are hitting the same issue than this patch: > > >

Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix_timers: Defer per process timer stop after timers processing

2013-04-25 Thread Olivier Langlois
> > > IMO, a more likely scenario, posix_cpu_timer_schedule() will be called > from dequeue_signal() which will be from from a different context than > the interrupt context. > I'll be even more explicit. Inside dequeue_signal(), do_schedule_next_timer() is called which then call posix_cpu_tim

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-25 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 11:08 -0700, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:38 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro > wrote: > >> I feel we are hitting the same issue than this patch: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/5/116 > >> > >> I'm adding Kosaki in Cc, who proposed roughly the same fix. > > > > Th

Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix_timers: Defer per process timer stop after timers processing

2013-04-25 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 14:47 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > I might be mistaken but I believe that firing timers are not rescheduled > > in the current interrupt context. They are going to be rescheduled later > > from the task context handling the timer generated signal. > > No, whe

Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix_timers: Defer per process timer stop after timers processing

2013-04-18 Thread Olivier Langlois
Hi Frederic, > /* > @@ -1279,6 +1277,7 @@ void run_posix_cpu_timers(struct task_struct *tsk) > LIST_HEAD(firing); > struct k_itimer *timer, *next; > unsigned long flags; > + struct signal_struct *sig; > > BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled()); > > @@ -1336,6 +1335,10 @@ void run

[PATCH] Remove spurious cputimer restart and eliminate its drift

2013-04-17 Thread Olivier Langlois
complex to achieve. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c | 44 +--- kernel/sched/fair.c | 10 +- 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c index

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-14 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 17:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 12:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I'll try and dig through the rest of your email later.. sorry for > > being > > a tad slow etc. > > > So at thread_group_cputimer() we initialize the cputimer->cputime state

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-14 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:48 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > Please explain how expensive it is. All I am seeing is a couple of > > additions. > > Let me start with this, since your earlier argument also refers to &

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-10 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 13:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:59 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > Process timers are moving fasters than their corresponding > > cpu clock for various reasons: > > > > 1. There is a race condition when getting a

Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-10 Thread Olivier Langlois
On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 13:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 13:59 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > Process timers are moving fasters than their corresponding > > cpu clock for various reasons: > > > > 1. There is a race condition when getting a

[PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

2013-04-05 Thread Olivier Langlois
voking tst-cputimer1 in an infinite loop. Signed-off-by: Olivier Langlois --- include/linux/kernel_stat.h | 1 + include/linux/sched.h | 5 +++ kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c | 93 + kernel/sched/core.c | 22 +-- kernel/sched