Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Low latency out-of-process vs in-process .. Re: Low Latency Kernel Combos
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2001 - 01:31:58 EEST
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Paul Davis wrote:
> >But the experience with my lowlatency testing stuff tells me that it will be
> >almost impossible to get 3msec latencies in an enviroment where multiple
> >processere are involved.
>
> Unfortunately Benno, your (and my) intuition is wrong, as shown by the
> testing that Abramo and Steve did about 3 weeks ago. In the extreme
> cases, a requirement for in-process is the right thing to do.
Interesting ... did they produce some simulations / stats / graphs / testing
tools which are publicy available ?
(if someone has links to mailarchives / sites handy please post them)
I'm kinda lost in the huge pile of mails I had to catchup in my inbox,
so excuse me if at times I'm missing some things when it comes to discuss latest
advances in the audio API filed.
>
> However, we need to support out-of-process too since it will work even
> for <3msec latencies in almost every case. Thats why the audioengine
> API I am in the midst of proposing is independent of whether or not
> the "client/plugin" is in-process or out-of-process, though I have to
> admit to a bias toward out-of-process right now, since it solves many
> problems without introducing many new ones.
Yes this independence is good since it allows one to choose the model that
suits best for his needs.
I'm still a bit sceptical about the out-of-process and 3msec latencies,
but if it turns out to be true, fine then.
cheers,
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jun 07 2001 - 02:08:27 EEST