Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: jim <jim@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, December 3, 2012 - 1:02 am

--f46d040169fb6ac5b604cfe84bbd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

nice has absolutely nothing to do with this, and if it has any effect, it
is accidental and should not be relied on.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:50 PM, jim wrote:

>

--f46d040169fb6ac5b604cfe84bbd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

nice has absolutely nothing to do with this, and if it has any effect, it i=
s accidental and should not be relied on.On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:50 PM, jim <jim@well.c=
om
> wrote:

=A0 =A0 You probably tried using the =A0nice =A0command,
maybe with most processes +10 and with -10 for
your music processes, yes?

On Sun, 2012-12-02 at 13:00 -0800, Ken Restivo wrote:

and recorded with it extensively for most of those, yadda yadda. But it se=
ems I've had an embarassingly huge hole in my knowledge the whole time.=

>

permissions and Ingo kernels, it was required for the process ITSELF early =
in the main() routine of its source code, to make some system calls to clai=
m RT priority. In fact, I specifically remember reading or even writing sou=
rce code in C which did that (probably based on JACK sample code). I don&#3=
9;t recall the name of the syscall, but it was something obvious and well-d=
ocumented.

>

operly in order to be real-time capable, something about callbacks taking s=
ome predictable amount of time. Or perhaps that was only a JACK requirement=
.

>

aying around with Liquidsoap and Airtime for some radio stations, and I&#39=
;m obsessed with getting them as rock-solid on cheap/free/old hardware as I=
'd been able to get with my gigging and studio synths.

>

ing on the same box. It seems an outrage to me. Shouldn't happen. Ever.=
I used to record and mix multi-track songs in Ardour with tons of soft-syn=
ths WHILE A KERNEL COMPILE WAS GOING ON THE SAME MACHINE without a single g=
litch. I expect no less.

>

to the Gentoo page in response (why? I have no idea. I use Debian, and tha=
t's irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.).
e RT priority to things that aren't real-time apps and aren't speci=
fically architected for that? What, if anything, would break?
which wouldn't be a bad thing to know anyway), is it even possible to g=
et it RT-capable, or are there low-level C system calls required in order t=
o make that work?

>

e for a while, and I figured someone here would know the answer, or where I=
might find it.
ser@lists.linuxaudio.org

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@l=
ists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

--f46d040169fb6ac5b604cfe84bbd--

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 Davis, (Mon Dec 3, 1:02 am)
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)