On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:34:41AM +0200, Nick Copeland wrote: > > Does your system use PAM limits.conf? Most of the online documentation > suggests a value of 95 for the rtprio setting for the audio group. Having > this thread get 98 is odd, it implies you have some other setting or are using > some other method. Either way, the process would have had to request this > value itself - nobody could really have done it for him. > > The values of 65 probably come from the Jack API however that comes from > linking with the process, it is not something jackd does. > > Your ps output does not include the associated uid however if LinuxSampler > were running as root it could quite easily give itself rtprio 98. > Yes I have limits.conf. I have it set up in the standard jack way. I vaguely recall a way to set separate limits for different applications, but I've since forgotten where I found that. If so, perhaps I can put a limit on linuxsampler so it doesn't grab a higher priority than the audio card, or jackd itself! Thanks -ken ---------- > > > > > > From: arnold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To: linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:22:59 +0200 > > Subject: Re: LinuxSampler higher priority than the audio card or jack?! > > > > On Monday 17 August 2009 10:04:50 Ken Restivo wrote: > > > LinuxSampler grabs priority 98??! > > > Most JACK apps start up at 65, as you can see, below the priority of > > > jackd. > > > IRQ-219 is my audio interface. > > > How was LinuxSampler able to grab such a ridiculously high priority? Who > > > told it to do that? > > > > Probably the same way as with jackd (two priorities of 80 and 70 in your > > dump): One thread is the watchdog to kill the others if they misbehave. Of > > course this thread should have its priority as high as possible... > > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
