Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-31 Thread Jonathan Wilkes
't it supposed to kill Pd? -Jonathan - Original Message - > From: Jean-Marie Adrien > To: Roman Haefeli > Cc: "pd-list@iem.at List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 6:30 AM > Subject: Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling > >T hanks everyone ! > Bes

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-31 Thread Jean-Marie Adrien
Thanks everyone ! Best practical way is probably communicate with another PD on multiprocessor architecture though. This is what I had in thought, but I wanted to post before implementing. JM Le 31 oct. 2012 à 09:12, Roman Haefeli a écrit : > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:42 -0400, Hans-Christoph S

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-31 Thread Roman Haefeli
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 18:52 +0100, Cyrille Henry wrote: > hello, > > if your problem is detecting when cpu is over 100% so that delay is > not acurate, then the best solution is some kind of external watchdog. > > just send a message every 10 ms to an other software, if this external > software d

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-31 Thread Roman Haefeli
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:42 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > [delay] is as firm as your going to get, from what I've seen. [delay] > should be at least as accurate to about one audio block, so like > 1.5ms, so if you only need 250ms accuracy, you have plenty of room. [delay] is not "somewha

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-31 Thread IOhannes m zmoelnig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2012-10-30 18:13, Jean-Marie Adrien wrote: > Hello I'm trying to launch security procedures in case of trouble, > that will respond in less than 250 msec. The fundamental question > is : > > Is there an object to schedule an event in the future w

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-30 Thread Simon Iten
If you have a multicore machine you should be fine... On Oct 31, 2012 12:31 AM, "Jonathan Wilkes" wrote: > - Original Message - > > > From: Cyrille Henry > > To: pd-list@iem.at > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:52 PM > > Subject

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-30 Thread Jonathan Wilkes
- Original Message - > From: Cyrille Henry > To: pd-list@iem.at > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:52 PM > Subject: Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling > > hello, > > if your problem is detecting when cpu is over 100% so that delay is not > acurate

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-30 Thread Cyrille Henry
hello, if your problem is detecting when cpu is over 100% so that delay is not acurate, then the best solution is some kind of external watchdog. just send a message every 10 ms to an other software, if this external software did not receive anything during the last 20ms, then there is a cpu p

Re: [PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-30 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner
[delay] is as firm as your going to get, from what I've seen. [delay] should be at least as accurate to about one audio block, so like 1.5ms, so if you only need 250ms accuracy, you have plenty of room. .hc On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Jean-Marie Adrien wrote: > Hello > I'm trying to launch

[PD] firm delay scheduling

2012-10-30 Thread Jean-Marie Adrien
Hello I'm trying to launch security procedures in case of trouble, that will respond in less than 250 msec. The fundamental question is : Is there an object to schedule an event in the future with firm absolute delay ? {realtime} measures time AFTER the problem (no scheduling) {del} schedules