[LAU] A surprisingly stupid RT priority question

Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas pedro.lopez.cabanillas at gmail.com
Sun Dec 2 22:03:58 UTC 2012

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

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

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.


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list