Maybe your softwares support load-sharing over multiple processors (a good thing, no?) and therefore all the work is being neatly divided between the processors. Any reason that should be bad? Dan 2009/5/1, Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen@xxxxxxxxx>: > Arnold Krille wrote: > > > I don't understand your question? > > > Ok. > > > > chuck and ams are independant applications, there is no reason why they > > shouldn't run in parallel on different cores. > > > We agree on that. > > > > Both use threads to split their work, again there is no reason they have all > > their threads running on the same core. In fact one of the reasons to use > > threads is to make use of multiple cores within one app. > > > But doubling the load (for instance by adding more voices to ams) makes > *both* threads rise by (about) 100%. Wouldn't you expect for instance > gui threads to stay the same. Other cpu heavy processes seem to use only > one core, for instance building stuff from source. Also... > > > > With standard jack it *should* be that all jack-related threads run on one > > core, in your case leaving the second core for gui- and disk-threads. jackdmp > > makes use of multiple cores as far as I know. > > > ...chuck is non gui and the code I'm running in chuck (my own) doesn't > use disk i/o. Starting ams with -n (nogui) it still takes up two > threads. It looks like this in htop: > > http://atte.dk/download/ams_nogui.png > > So one thread with prio 20 and one with -76 chewing away at the same 27%. > > It might be totally normal and totally unavoidable, but I'm just curious > and doubtful :-) > > > -- > Atte > > http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user > -- http://www.mcld.co.uk _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
