[PD] latency

[Luke Yelavich]

At 11:50 AM 17/11/2003, guenter geiger wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > Am I understanding this correctly: *If* Pd was converted to callbacks
> > *then* those things you pointed out would be in need of threading
> > (because they are not "realtime safe", as the Jack folks would put it)?
> >
> > So using blocking IO (Pablio) lets us get away with doing those
> > non-realtime safe things kind of inside the dsp loop at the cost of
> > having large(r) latencies?
> >
> > Just asking to get a clear view here...
>
>Yes, exactly. For the JACK case this is needed, otherwise the jackd would
>kick pd out of its chain. We only "fool" JACK into making it believe that
>we can meet the deadlines in all circumstances, while in reality we can't.

Could anything be done to improve this? Or would this also mean other major 
rewrites elsewhere?

Luke
--
Luke Yelavich
AudioSlack Founder and head package maintainer
Audio software packaged for the Slackware Linux Distribution
http://www.audioslack.com
luke at audioslack.com