Re: [LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

On Sunday 02 December 2012 13:00:57 Ken Restivo wrote:
> OK, I know I've been using Linux audio for 6 years now, and gigged and
> recorded with it extensively for most of those, yadda yadda. But it seems
> I've had an embarassingly huge hole in my knowledge the whole time.
>
> I was under the impression that, in order to use real time
> priorities/permissions and Ingo kernels, it was required for the process
> ITSELF early in the main() routine of its source code, to make some system
> calls to claim RT priority. In fact, I specifically remember reading or
> even writing source code in C which did that (probably based on JACK sample
> code). I don't recall the name of the syscall, but it was something obvious
> and well-documented.

You are probably talking about sched_setscheduler and friends
http://goo.gl/kTlOR

Desktop apps may use RealtimeKit instead of calling that API directly, but
Liquidaudio is not this kind of thing, if I've understood it correctly
http://git.0pointer.de/?p=rtkit.git;a=blob;f=README

The question is if Liquidsoap really needs low latency audio (small buffers +
high/RT priority) or it works better with bigger buffers and high latency so
you don't need to worry too much about priorities.

Regards,
Pedro

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Dec 3 00:15:03 2012