Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012 - 10:04 pm

On Sunday 02 December 2012 13:00:57 Ken Restivo wrote:

You are probably talking about sched_setscheduler and friends
http://goo.gl/kTlOR

Desktop apps may use RealtimeKit instead of calling that API directly, but
Liquidaudio is not this kind of thing, if I've understood it correctly
http://git.0pointer.de/?p=rtkit.git;a=blob;f=README

The question is if Liquidsoap really needs low latency audio (small buffers +
high/RT priority) or it works better with bigger buffers and high latency so
you don't need to worry too much about priorities.

Regards,
Pedro

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Ken Restivo, (Sun Dec 2, 9:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Paul Coccoli, (Sat Dec 8, 7:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas, (Sun Dec 2, 10:04 pm)
Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Ken Restivo, (Mon Dec 3, 2:27 am)
Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Aaron Krister Johnson, (Mon Dec 3, 4:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question, Harry van Haaren, (Sun Dec 2, 9:23 pm)