Paul Davis wrote: > > >The server based approach has an added cost of an extra context switch > >every period (about 1500 cycles on my machine i.e.), but this is fully > >amortized by such an huge difference. > > recall that (1) the context switch time is not a fixed cost but
Mine was only a very rough approximation for trivial audio generating processes. > depends on the memory behaviour between switches and (2) isn't it > either two switches per participating client/application, or if they > are chained (as in JACK), N+2 switches, where N is the number of > clients/applications ? I don't understand why... Suppose that on an otherwise idle UP system we have 3 application generating output for current pcm_dmix. In this case we have something like ABCABCABCABC... etc. In pcm_mix case we use a saturate/transfer/zero thread called M and the we'll have something like ABCMABCMABCMABCM... etc. Do you agree? -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
