On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Scott Gravenhorst <music.ma...@gte.net> wrote:
> I've also been experimenting with threads and CPU affinity as well as > isolcpu to isolate cores. My assumption (which could be incorrect) is that > isolated cores will run at near bare metal efficiency because the > interrupts from random devices and other mundane kernel tasks will be > handled by the core or cores left for the kernel's use and that the clocks > of the isolated core or cores can be used to generate samples with more > time deterministic properties than would be without isolated cores. > I have no idea if that will work or not, but it sounds like you are thinking about the right things. I'll just note that some operating systems make specific information available about how long it takes them to do things like handle an interrupt and return execution to a high priority, user-domain process (I'm thinking of "real-time" operating systems like QNX and Irix). This can be useful for determining how large your buffers need to be, even if your cores are interrupted, and even if need to handle unexpected situations. I don't know if Linux does this, but since you are running on fixed hardware, you should be able to determine optimal buffer sizes and so on through testing. bjorn -- Bjorn Roche @shimmeoapp
_______________________________________________ dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
