On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > >> Running JS sync in the audio thread is also suboptimal: it means that JS >> misbehavior can cripple audio processing. I find it easy to imagine cases >> where I'd rather have all my JS analysis code running on the main thread to >> minimize the possibly of breaking my audio output, even though there's a >> small latency penalty. >> > > True enough. But in that case, you can simply transfer the data over to > another thread to do the processing there, yes? > You can, but it's simpler and safer to be able to avoid running any JS on the audio thread in the first place. Also I imagine there'll be some overhead to running JS on the audio thread that would be nice to avoid. Rob -- oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 03:20:55 UTC