Re: changing the scheduling and niceness of espeakup and related processes
> On Feb 10, 2022, at 6:36 PM, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Frank Carmickle, le jeu. 10 févr. 2022 14:44:06 -0500, a ecrit:
>>> On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Nick Gawronski <nick@nickgawronski.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, I am often doing testing of software like Android building and find that speech will stop during one of the processor heavy building processes. What I would like to be able to do is to change espeakup and other processes so they run with the highest niceness
>>
>> Are you experiencing choppy speech or does speech just pause for a time?
>>
>> I use the following in rc.local. You could build a systemd unit for it, if you'd like.
>
> Good idea. I have submitted it to
> https://github.com/linux-speakup/espeakup/pull/46 and added to the
> debian package. It's a matter of adding
>
> Nice=-10
>
> in the [Service] section of /lib/systemd/system/espeakup.service
>
>> I'm going to go read the bug reports to see if this is already being tracked. If not, I will open a bug.
>
> I don't remember any. It's commited already anyway, so no need any more
> for a bug report, thanks :)
I'm sorry. My message must not have been clear. The niceness change helps in the case of choppy speech. It does not help in the case that I was going to open a bug about. The bug is that a large input to espeakup causes the synthasizer to stop speaking for a time measured in seconds. Depending on how much data is sent into espeakup it could be one second or a multiple there of.
Thank you for adding the renice to the package.
It would be good to taskset as well, if systemd has a mechanism for this so we don't have a dependency on util-linux.
--FC
>> Yes I could always tell the building process to not use as many jobs but this slows down the building process.
>
> You can also do the converse:
>
> nice -20 make -j 40
>
> to make the build nicer to the rest of the system.
>
> But yes, better make espeakup prioritized, thanks for raising the issue!
>
> Samuel
Reply to: