Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli@...>
Cc: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Saturday, December 8, 2012 - 8:16 pm

--bcaec553ff982b3af504d05d01d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Paul Coccoli wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Paul Davis

nice alters the behaviour of scheduler with respect to SCHED_OTHER tasks
using an algorithm that is (almost) completely irrelevant for programs that
do very little interaction with the user and use most of their CPU time
streaming media.

applications that stream media should either (a) use enough buffering that
they do not run into xruns with respect to the delivery endpoint or (b) use
SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR (c) both. using nice is a bandaid that simply masks
design problems, if in fact it has the right effect at all.

--bcaec553ff982b3af504d05d01d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, D=
ec 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:0=
1 PM, Paul Davis <paul@lin=
uxaudiosystems.com
> wrote:

> nice has absolutely nothing to do with this, and if it has any effect,=
it is

I know that's your stock answer whenever someone mentions nice, b=
ut if
the OP is talking about SCHED_OTHER processes, nice does play a role.nice alters the behaviour of scheduler with respect to =
SCHED_OTHER tasks using an algorithm that is (almost) completely irrelevant=
for programs that do very little interaction with the user and use most of=
their CPU time streaming media.
applications that stream media should either (a) use enough buffering t=
hat they do not run into xruns with respect to the delivery endpoint or (b)=
use SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR (c) both. using nice is a bandaid that simply mask=
s design problems, if in fact it has the right effect at all.

--bcaec553ff982b3af504d05d01d4--

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, Paul Davis, (Sat Dec 8, 8:16 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)