Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: costs of IPC

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: costs of IPC
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 13:57:37 EEST


>You've a debt, I've tried this morning ;-)

paypal?

>> >"Before an xrun has occured"??? Of course not... I was thinking to
>> >something far less ambitious. A component does not answer any more? We
>> >disable it/kill it/restart it. The one process model imply that all the
>> >application need to be restarted.
>>
>> How do you propose to detect that a component has not answered? Think
>
>With a timer on engine.

which would presumably be asynchronous, since the engine is going to
be blocked waiting for the component to respond.

>> about it for a little while, and I think you'll see that the way you
>> would do this with a multithreaded app is not very different than the
>> way you'd do it with a multiprocess design.
>
>And so what?

it means that you can get the same safety with a single-thread
approach.

>In order of increasing robustness:
>- single thread
>- multiple threads
>- multiple processes

i don't think there is *any* difference in robustness between single
thread and multithread. i agree emphatically that there is a huge
difference between the threaded models and the multiple process one,
which certainly makes the latter attractive.

--p


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon May 14 2001 - 14:14:18 EEST