Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: costs of IPC
From: Abramo Bagnara (abramo_AT_alsa-project.org)
Date: Wed May 16 2001 - 22:44:54 EEST
Jay Ts wrote:
>
> >
> > Jay Ts wrote:
> > >
> > > Abramo, I'm wondering about something. Maybe you've told us this
> > > before, but if so, I've skimmed over it. Can you tell us, in 200
> > > words or less, why you feel that a multiprocess approach is so
> > > vital to support? That is, what do you want to do that would require
> > > it, and would not be possible with the single process (minimized/no
> > > IPC or context switching) approach?
> >
> > 200 words... far less ;-)
> >
> > - performance (for SMP machine)
> > - greater robustness
> > - integration of audio applications not written as pure component
>
> Oops ... let me rephrase my question: Suppose I do not under *any*
> circumstances (hypnosis, propaganda, torture, blackmail... :-) believe
> the first two. Can you give us a specific example of an application,
> maybe even a 'killer app', that *needs* the multi-process support,
> and simply wouldn't be possible to implement otherwise?
>
> I've been thinking, if the app is allowed to function as its own
> process, using IPC, it will be a fully-fledged Unix process and have
> access to system resources and features it wouldn't have if it were
> running as a function call, through a plugin API. Or is this not
> correct?
Are you asking if to be Turing equivalent it needs more than one
process? ;-)))
Seriously, I don't understand what you're asking.
-- Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo_AT_alsa-project.orgOpera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org It sounds good!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed May 16 2001 - 23:06:01 EEST