[PD] pd~ subprocess

Miller Puckette msp at ucsd.edu
Fri Apr 22 18:31:27 CEST 2011


Hi Tim --

Pd~ is still a moving target (it's one of the things I want to work on
now that the GUI swap is stable).

The current implementation has a limited buffer going back and forth
between the processes and so it's easy for either the "parent" or "child"
Pd to deadlock waiting on data from the other one.  The buffers are maintained
in pipes and in Linux I think they're 8Kb.

If you can reduce the volume of information flowing between the two Pd~s this
sometimes helps greatly.  Also, paradoxically, sometimes it helps to
reduce the buffering -- in linux I usually use -fifo 10.

cheers
Miller

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 03:58:21PM +0200, tim vets wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm trying out pd~ for spreading workload over multiple processors,
> and thus increase performance.
> 
> but if I load my [subproctest] as an abstraction, it doesn't cause clicks,
> while with:
> 
> [pd~ start subproctest.pd(
> |
> [pd~ -ninsig 8 -noutsig 8 -fifo 20]
> 
> ...clicks galore...
> 
> (pd-extended 0.42.5, ubuntustudio Hardy, qjackctl, RME hdsp, intel core i7
> processor)
> 
> any tips?
> thanks,
> Tim

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list




More information about the Pd-list mailing list