27 May
2009
27 May
'09
4:47 p.m.
Paul Davis schrieb:
2009/5/26 Ulrich Lorenz Schlüter
<audio-mobster(a)gmx.de>de>:
Absolutely right. My intention was to compute the values less often than
on each jack_process() cycle. So no lack of stupidity on my side.
Thanks for your kind help
Jens M Andreasen schrieb:
note: for GUI purposes, given that your display only redraws at
between 60Hz and 100Hz, there is little point in computing values for
display at frequencies much above this. the simplest technique is to
compute them once per jack_process() cycle and stuff the results into
a suitably sized ringbuffer where the GUI will read them. the GUI just
grabs all available values and uses the most recent one.
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 21:34 +0200, Ulrich Lorenz
Schlüter wrote:
I'll get rid of it although it wasn't any cpu consuming on my old
system. 10MHz oops that's not what I wanted.
> What does this thread do?
>
>
>
>
The thread is calculating all the gains every 100 nanoseconds.
Oh! It could be that the implementation of nanosleep() has changed then.
At that rate you cannot meet deadlines reliable without hugging on to
the processor, which would then explain why CPU has gone way up for you.
/j
[Seriously, You really are sampling at 10MHz?]