Re: asm.e questions
Nick Metcalfe <metcalfn at ALPHALINK.COM.AU> wrote:
>
>Unfortunately, I must assume that because the task to be performed is
>pretty intensive, getting Eu to handle the file operations would
>probably drink way too much cpu power. It also means it could not be
>made totally background and would need some kind of polling loop, the
>very thing I want to eliminate.
>
>Briefly, the isr's file section will need to page large sections of any
>long waves from disk for mixing and playback in real time. It will also
>be used for recording, although this will not be as strenuous, and could
>probably be done the way you suggest, although I would prefer that to be
>background as well leaving plenty of cpu power for vu meters, fancy time
>displays and the like. B-)
>
>--
> Nick Metcalfe <metcalfn at alphalink.com.au>
> http://www.alphalink.com.au/~metcalfn
Nick,
I would like to know what you mean about IO routines eating up too much CPU.
I don't know how efficient Eu's file routines are, but IO typically is more
a consumer of clock time than CPU cycles. Finding ways to make IO efficient
on any particular configuration is no simple job, but CPU cycles are not
usually the most prominent concern. Also, from what I can tell, all Eu
driven file IO is synchronous...meaning Eu waits on the completion of IO to
proceed to the next instruction. Buffering and caching external to Eu can
improve the efficiency of such IO, but if the CPU has nothing else to do
other than wait on the IO, much will go to waste. Even if you do all the IO
in the background through some asm routine, you will still have to write
some polling routine to tie the IO to the Eu code. I think that you said
that this was to be done in DOS, where you have no call back ability. I
don't see how you will get to what you want to do without moving to a
Windows type setup.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
