On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:36:00 -0400 Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Say we have A, B & C in that order and B&C each take 3mS to return but A > >> takes > > > > 6mS. Does C get booted out even though it was A that was the time hog? > >> > > > note that nobody but the user can know that A is the time hog. A could be a > huge but very efficient signal processor and C could be a badly written > delay line. The amount of time they take relative to what they "should" > take is not known to JACK (and in most cases, not even to the user). Thanks Paul. This makes perfect sense, and again is more-or-less what I'd guessed. It basically underlines that a client really can't make any assumptions :( If a client fails to send anything to the buffer, is it likely to contain just random data, zeros or the last block of data the client sent? This may be a bit over the top, but I'm thinking along the lines of a client knowing it will take (say) 5mS to fully process but only having 2mS available and deciding to just return a sort of approximation instead. It's probably not worth the effort, but I wondered if the client could attempt to be a 'good citizen' and take some form of remedial action. -- It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was) ... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you, but trying to catch the good bits. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
