[PD] latency

Luke Yelavich luke at audioslack.com
Mon Nov 17 02:15:23 CET 2003

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 Yelavich
AudioSlack Founder and head package maintainer
Audio software packaged for the Slackware Linux Distribution
luke at audioslack.com

More information about the Pd-list mailing list