[PD] pd and multi-core processors

[tim vets]

2010/4/5 Tim Blechmann <tim at klingt.org>

> > has anyone been using pd~ successfully ?
> > I am trying it out, but i get very poor results.
> > It seems like a patch loaded with pd~ is a lot heavier than the same
> > loaded as a regular abstraction (DIO errors, see also my message "pd~ and
> > DIO errors").
> > I assumed it would run on another processor core...but does it?
> > Is there a way to check this?
>
> it is the job of the scheduler of the operating system to assign the
> processes to different cores. both parent and child process should probably
> be pinned to different physical cores. not sure, whether miller took that
> into account, though ...
>

What I have tried in the past is run one pd for audio and another one for
GEM stuff, which worked rather well.
I wonder if it would make sense to do the same with 2 pd instances doing
audio, and exchange audio between them.
Maybe I could try that with Jack.
But I think the latency will be doubled, because the buffers of both pd's
would add up...?
gr,
Tim



>
> tim
>
> --
> tim at klingt.org
> http://tim.klingt.org
>
> Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates, apache inside, stable.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100405/2f485db3/attachment.htm>