[PD] -rt for whom?
geiger at xdv.org
Wed Jul 7 18:42:48 CEST 2004
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Miller Puckette wrote:
> Pd effectively tries to make its main thread the "real-time" one. If
> you stick hard-core computations in the main thread, as GEM does, this
> can have a bad effect on your machine. THis is why "-rt" and GEM
> disagree with each other on OSX - and I suppose on linux as well although
> I don't know that.
My understanding was that currently it is simply not possible to do
non-trivial audio and video processing with pd at the same time. This
is because the video extensions do not have their own thread.
I think pdp has sort of an option to run in its own thread, but I don't
know how well this works, or how it is implemented.
The solution in general is to have two pd's running at the same time.
One doing the video using the -nosound flag and communicating with the
other one, with -rt which is doing the audio.
In theory, with Thomas Grills simple lock mechanism it should be possible
to change gem and pdp and put them into a separate thread.
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 04:57:47PM -0500, chris clepper wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:24 PM, Larry Troxler wrote:
> > >On Monday 05 July 2004 13:57, chris clepper wrote:
> > >>A few notes about -rt mode:
> > >>
> > >>First, -rt is different on OSX compared to Linux. On Linux, the flag
> > >>sets the priority of the pd process just like nice or renice
> > >
> > >Sorry if I somehow have a basic misunderstanding about how POSIX
> > >real-time
> > >scheduling works on Linux, but I think you're very wrong (or else the
> > >behavior of "nice" has changed a bit since the last time I researched
> > >it).
> > I think you completely missed the point I was making, which concerns
> > the difference between the way processes are represented in the two
> > systems. You may indeed be right that (re)nice won't do exactly the
> > same thing as calling the POSIX scheduling API, but the point is that
> > treating scheduling on OSX just like Linux is worthless because the
> > kernel looks at tasks and threads differently. More to the point, Pd
> > has no actual real-time scheduling enabled on OSX, so the -rt flag is a
> > misnomer to begin with. Real-time scheduling would be done using the
> > Mach kernel thread API as outlined in this document:
> > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/
> > KernelProgramming/scheduler/chapter_8_section_4.html
> > The section under 'Using the Mach Thread API to Influence Scheduling'
> > contains the relevant info. Setting priority to FIFO doesn't appear to
> > do anything at all related to 'real-time' scheduling. By 'real-time' I
> > mean that exact amounts of time in cycles are set aside for a given
> > process per second and having the kernel agree to only do that task in
> > those cycles. Just setting a high priority for a thread won't do that,
> > and also has some nasty side-effects as evidenced by GEM. Again, this
> > is apparently completely and totally different from Linux 'real-time',
> > and implementations should reflect that.
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-list mailing list
> > PD-list at iem.at
> > to manage your subscription (including un-subscription) see
> > http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
> to manage your subscription (including un-subscription) see
More information about the Pd-list