On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:40:41 +0200 Alfons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You shouldn't check for events int jack_process(), but in a separate > thread, linked to jack_process() using a lock-free circular buffer for > the [event+timestamp] data. Of course. I assumed that you assumed that i know this :) But this is not the problem. I still insist: To get constant latency you have to take 2 periods worth latency into account. I cannot spell it out more clearly than i have done. > To get really accurate timing in all cases, this thread should even have > higher priority than the one created by jackd (*), otherwise all events that > occur while a jack_process() is running will be delayed until the end > of all processing for the current cycle. Exactly. > (*) but lower than jackd's master thread. This is currently not possible > since the difference in priorities is just 1. Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://affenbande.org/~tapas/
