Hello!
We're currently using pth_usleep() as a timer for a userspace audio
application. However, it doesn't seem very accurate and reliable. Is
there a better (more accurate) timer that we can call form a userspace
application?
Thanks,
Andre
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:27 -0700, Andre Eisenbach wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're currently using pth_usleep() as a timer for a userspace audio
> application. However, it doesn't seem very accurate and reliable. Is
> there a better (more accurate) timer that we can call form a userspace
> application?
Why don't you just clock off the sound card?
Lee
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:27 -0700, Andre Eisenbach wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're currently using pth_usleep() as a timer for a userspace audio
> application. However, it doesn't seem very accurate and reliable. Is
> there a better (more accurate) timer that we can call form a userspace
> application?
>
Also, this is a bit OT for LKML. Try linux-audio-dev at
music.columbia.edu. You can probably find several good ways to do it in
the archives.
Lee
Andre Eisenbach wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're currently using pth_usleep() as a timer for a userspace audio
> application. However, it doesn't seem very accurate and reliable. Is
> there a better (more accurate) timer that we can call form a userspace
> application?
>
> Thanks,
> Andre
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
What about nanosleep ()?
Matthias-Christian
2005/5/10, Lee Revell <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:27 -0700, Andre Eisenbach wrote:
>
> Why don't you just clock off the sound card?
>
I'll look into this.
Oh, and sorry for the off-topic :(
Thanks,
Andre
2005/5/10, Matthias-Christian Ott <[email protected]>:
>
> What about nanosleep ()?
>
nanosleep() seems to have some latency very similar to usleep(). Isn't
usleep based on nanosleep()?
Here's what I get if I try to nanosleep for 5 secs (for testing):
-> 5.009952 s
The .009952 part varies, but is very close to that usually.
Thanks,
Andre
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 14:16 -0700, Andre Eisenbach wrote:
> 2005/5/10, Matthias-Christian Ott <[email protected]>:
> >
> > What about nanosleep ()?
> >
>
> nanosleep() seems to have some latency very similar to usleep(). Isn't
> usleep based on nanosleep()?
>
> Here's what I get if I try to nanosleep for 5 secs (for testing):
>
> -> 5.009952 s
>
> The .009952 part varies, but is very close to that usually.
Is this a 2.4 kernel? The resolution on 2.6 should be 1ms, not ~10ms.
Lee
2005/5/10, Lee Revell <[email protected]>:
> > Here's what I get if I try to nanosleep for 5 secs (for testing):
> >
> > -> 5.009952 s
> >
> > The .009952 part varies, but is very close to that usually.
>
> Is this a 2.4 kernel? The resolution on 2.6 should be 1ms, not ~10ms.
Yes indeed, that was a 2.4 kernel. On 2.6 (different machine though) I get:
-> 5.001064 s
Thanks,
Andre
Andre Eisenbach wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We're currently using pth_usleep() as a timer for a userspace audio
> application. However, it doesn't seem very accurate and reliable. Is
> there a better (more accurate) timer that we can call form a userspace
> application?
You don't say what resolution you want, but to ~ 1 ms, nanosleep or
clock_nanosleep should work. If you need better resolution, check out the HRT
patch, see sig. below.
--
George Anzinger [email protected]
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/