19 May
2005
19 May
'05
1:59 p.m.
On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:40:41 +0200
Alfons Adriaensen <fons.adriaensen(a)alcatel.be> wrote:
You shouldn't check for events int jack_process(),
but in a separate
thread, linked to jack_process() using a lock-free circular buffer for
the [event+timestamp] data.
Of course. I assumed that you assumed that i know this :) But this is
not the problem. I still insist: To get constant latency you have to
take 2 periods worth latency into account. I cannot spell it out more
clearly than i have done.
To get really accurate timing in all cases, this
thread should even have
higher priority than the one created by jackd (*), otherwise all events that
occur while a jack_process() is running will be delayed until the end
of all processing for the current cycle.
Exactly.
(*) but lower than jackd's master thread. This is
currently not possible
since the difference in priorities is just 1.
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://affenbande.org/~tapas/