Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <pedro.lopez.cabanillas@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, December 3, 2012 - 2:27 am

On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:03:58PM +0100, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:

Thanks everyone for the fantastic and detailed answers! Now it is all starting to make sense to me.

Yes, sched_foo were the ones I was thinking of, SCHED_FIFO being the priority for Ingo-ish RT, IIRC.

And yes, it was the requirement for determinsm (no malloc, blocking system calls, etc) that I remember from JACK callbacks, and thanks for confirming that it is a general requirement of RT audio in general, not of JACK in perticular.

Buffering indeed is what sounds like the main issue for Liquidsoap. But I have no way of knowing how much buffer would actually be necessary to assure it NEVER skips. This is why I was thinking along the lines of some kind of preemption to assure that never happens.

rtkit looks interesting, but if there were a way to this without it, I'd prefer that.

Low latency is NOT required for this application, just stability when starved for resources. Liquidsoap spends almost all of of its time decoding MP3s from disk or reading and decoding MP3 streams off of the internet.

-ken
_______________________________________________
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)