[PD] latency

guenter geiger geiger at xdv.org
Mon Nov 17 01:50:21 CET 2003

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.

For Portaudio this might be different, and using the callback solution
might be an option without further changes. mhm, just thinking what
Joe does with his VST version of Pd. Ideally this should be callback based


> ciao
> --
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list