27 Dec
2017
27 Dec
'17
3:17 a.m.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Yes, but I am not clear what that means. It could
mean "If you want I
can split the work into concurrent processes/threads in the hope that
you have enough cores to benefit from this.". Or it could mean "I
*will* pin different processes to different cores, and I will fail if
those cores aren't there.".
As a developer, I would not want my sw to fail because some *** user told
me to spread out my workload over 12 cores when there are only 4. I would
want my sw to run and never crash. With audio sw, there is already going
to be at least two threads for GUI and rt audio. If there are more
separate audio pathes (like mixer channels) each of those can be a thread
too. Those threads will be spread around the available cores... so if
thread one is on core one and thread two is on core two... if there are
two cores thread three is back on core one... if there is only one core,
all threads are run on that core. Though a lot of single core cpus show up
as two if hyperthreading is enabled. Note, the above description is
greatly simplified, both for easier understanding and because my
programing art is at a beginner level. I do run ring buffers to pass info
from realtime to GUI and back, but that is about as far as I have gotten
:)
--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net