[PD] Understanding the mechanics of rebuilding Pd's DSP graph

[Jonathan Wilkes]

Does [soundfiler] rebuild the dsp graph on read, or only if the -resize flagis used?  If its the latter then you can just set the right array size ahead of time.Then if you still get dropouts you'll know it's the blocking i/o doing it.
-Jonathan
 


     On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:50 PM, Matt Barber <brbrofsvl at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 There's nothing wrong per se with resizing an array -- but there are good reasons not to do it while a patch is running after a [tab*] object has referred to it. I have myself only noticed audio dropouts when I'm resizing a table with soundfiler; I thought it must have been a disk-access bottleneck (soundfiler runs synchronously, yes?), but it would make sense if it in very large patches that a resize triggering a DSP recalc could do it. Though, then wouldn't adding any tilde object do the same?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list <pd-list at lists.iem.at> wrote:

In C, what's the overhead of having function_call(return array->x_size) insteadof array->x_size inside a perform routine?
If that's not significant, it seems like it'd be better to over-allocate the array at creation/resize time and report the requested size to the user.  That way reallocation (and dsp-rebuilding) is only necessary if there's a substantial size change, or if the array is used by an external that uses the old API.
That's certainly more difficult to do than just rebuilding the graph on every resizing.  But to me it's preferable to telling new users, "Here's howto resize an array, which is a central feature for using objects like [tabplay~] and'Put' menu arrays and [soundfiler], but in reality don't use it because[[explanation of Pd's implementation details go here]]."
-Jonathan   

  On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:05 PM, Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 22:19 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 11:55 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> 
> > Is the time it takes to recalculate the graph only dependent on the
> > number of tilde-objects running in the current instance of Pd? If so, is
> > that a linear correlation? 10 times more tilde-objects means it takes 10
> > times as long to recalculate the graph?
> 
> [skipping those]

Simple tests suggests that the relation is linear. But maybe this
depends on the kind of graph? What I tested: I created 500 audio
processing abstractions dynamically and then I measured the time it
takes to send 'dsp 0, dsp 1' to pd. I did the same test again with 1000
instances and time doubled.

> > Why is resizing tables so much slower, when tilde-objects are
> > referencing it? I noticed that even resizing very small tables can be a
> > cause for audio drop-outs. I wonder whether 'live-resizing' should be
> > avoided altogether.
> 
> because the table-accessing objects will only check whether a table
> exists and of what size it is) when the DSP graph is re-calculated.
> this is a speed optimization, so those objects don't need to check the
> table existance/size in each signal block.
> the way how it is implemented is, that a table is marked as "being used
> in DSP processing" by a referencing object. as soon as such a table
> changes it's size (or is deleted), the DSP graph is notified - by means
> of recalculation.

Now, after knowing all these facts, it seems unwise to do table resizing
at all, especially for quite small tables. With today's amounts of RAM
available, it seems wise to allocate enough at patch-loading time and
only utilize the necessary part of it.  

> i guess the API could be changed to *unuse* a table (a simple refcounter
> should do), so that as soon as no DSP-object is referencing the object
> within the DSP-graph, any substantial change to it wouldn't trigger a
> DSP  graph recompilation.

The ability to recompile only a partition of the graph in general would
be a huge gain, IMHO. The ability to resize arrays without recompilation
isn't that big an advantage, is it? It would allow for a little simpler
patching, though.

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


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





  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150923/cc20620e/attachment-0001.html>