Hallo, Matju hat gesagt: // Matju wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Whooho, 64 already is *very* small. I never heard of anybody run jack with 32. That's almost hard-realtime!
Hi. I'd like to know what you consider to be hard-realtime. I was under the impression that it meant that the problem requires strict time limits on the execution, and therefore using pd audio in a way that causes no dropouts may already be considered as hard-realtime, no matter how big the latency.
I didn't intend to be technically correct, but illustrative. The correct description of hard realtime is of course yours: fixed upper latency limits. In that way, Linux might be considered hard-realtime already, with a hard latency of, say, several minutes. ;) Generally though people are not interested in hard latencies that big.
I was more referring to the special purpose realtime OSes, some based on Linux like RTLinux, which actually provide hard realtime in the microsecond area.
For our normal uses this would be overkill, IMO, and it's not the goal of most efforts in getting lower latencies for the general purpose Linux kernel. Although there are efforts to get hard realtime into the kernel, too. [1] This is important for several kinds of embedded devices, and the results of course can benefit our needs, too. But then probably an overhaul of Pd's architecture would be needed to make use of it.
[1] http://source.mvista.com/linux_2_6_RT_Announce.txt
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__