[LAU] LinuxSampler higher priority than the audio card or jack?!

[Ken Restivo]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:34:41AM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
> 
> Does your system use PAM limits.conf? Most of the online documentation
> suggests a value of 95 for the rtprio setting for the audio group. Having 
> this thread get 98 is odd, it implies you have some other setting or are using
> some other method. Either way, the process would have had to request this
> value itself - nobody could really have done it for him.
> 
> The values of 65 probably come from the Jack API however that comes from
> linking with the process, it is not something jackd does.
> 
> Your ps output does not include the associated uid however if LinuxSampler
> were running as root it could quite easily give itself rtprio 98.
> 

Yes I have limits.conf. I have it set up in the standard jack way.

I vaguely recall a way to set separate limits for different applications, but I've since forgotten where I found that. If so, perhaps I can put a limit on linuxsampler so it doesn't grab a higher priority than the audio card, or jackd itself!

Thanks

-ken
----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: arnold at arnoldarts.de
> > To: linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:22:59 +0200
> > Subject: Re: [LAU] LinuxSampler higher priority than the audio card or jack?!
> > 
> > On Monday 17 August 2009 10:04:50 Ken Restivo wrote:
> > >  LinuxSampler grabs priority 98??!
> > >  Most JACK apps start up at 65, as you can see, below the priority of
> > > jackd.
> > >  IRQ-219 is my audio interface.
> > >  How was LinuxSampler able to grab such a ridiculously high priority? Who
> > > told it to do that?
> > 
> > Probably the same way as with jackd (two priorities of 80 and 70 in your 
> > dump): One thread is the watchdog to kill the others if they misbehave. Of 
> > course this thread should have its priority as high as possible...
> >