Subject: [linux-audio-dev] SCHED_FIFO versus SCHED_RR
From: Phil Burk (philburk_AT_softsynth.com)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2001 - 19:04:33 EET
> From: dave willis <dubson_AT_dhammanet.net>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Phil Burk wrote:
> > It sounds like SCHED_RR is a bit more polite. I wouldn't want a monster
> > synthesis thread to hog the CPU and lock out everything else. I guess
with
> > Round Robin that equal priority threads at least get a chance to run. I
want
> > equal priority threads to timeslice with my task.
>
> what are you doing?
I am working on PortAudio. Full details here:
http://www.portaudio.com
I am using PortAudio for JSyn for Linux, Windows, and Mac. Full details
here:
http://www.softsynth.com/jsyn/
> i *would* (probably) want a monster synthesis thread
> to lock out everything else if it happened to hog my cpu during the
> operation (and not get stuck)- otherwise i'd be getting overruns.
Strangely, some people would prefer to have their audio glitch than to have
their computer lock them out and require a hard reset. Go figure. ;-)
> SCHED_RR does not help at all if
> a program is hogging the cpu. at best, it only seems to compromise the
> performance of programs equally if they all have the same sched.
OK, then I will use SCHED_FIFO. THANKS for the info.
> i added
> an exit for latencytest if the number of overruns gets too high (so i
> don't lock up my system eternally).
Yes, this is what I am also trying to prevent. So our goals are not so
different.
When I get all of this stuff incorporated into PortAudio, I will let folks
on the list know so they can use the code or comment on it.
Phil Burk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 27 2001 - 19:05:39 EET