[PD] what makes Pd-extended 0.43 so CPU-hungry?

[Jonathan Wilkes]

----- Original Message -----
> From: katja <katjavetter at gmail.com>
> To: pd-list <pd-list at iem.at>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [PD] what makes Pd-extended 0.43 so CPU-hungry?
> 
> On OSX I use 'Activity Monitor' for quick check of CPU load and
> Shark.app for serious performance profiling, but for GNU/Linux I don't
> know a good equivalent of Shark. So on Debian I just start top, and
> for my live performance setup which does ~40% CPU load with
> Pd-extended 0.42, it is ~60% with 0.43. Top makes distinction between
> 'pdextended' and pd-gui, but heavy GUI use is reflected in increasing
> percentages for Xorg process as well.

Have you compared with pd-l2ork in Debian?  Without doing any direct measurements, 
I seem to remember the pd-0.43-ext nightly build looking sluggish on my laptop when
moving around GUI objects, which I didn't see with pd-l2ork.

-Jonathan

> However, the load-increase with
> Pd-extended 0.43 is on account of the pdextended process (with my
> setups at least). Wish I could track that down to specific functions
> like with Shark.app.
> 
> In the case of OSX it was clearly the Apple dsp function calls
> consuming a great deal of CPU time, which could be avoided by using an
> external soundcard instead of the internal card, and Jack instead of
> PortAudio.
> 
> I've tried to use Oprofile on Debian, but this gives me a kernel
> failure soon as I start sampling. Does anyone know of a fine
> performance profiler for GNU/Linux?
> 
> Katja
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/4/12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
>> 
>> I honestly don't know the cause, and haven't really checked on 
> numbers.  I
>> mostly work on my four year old laptop, and test by running patches I know
>> (solitude is a good test of heavy CPU usage, it won't run on a machine 
> less
>> than 1.6GHz, from my experience).
>> 
>> As for drawing operations like anti-aliasing, those would not show up in 
> the
>> 'pd' process, but rather the 'pd-gui' process, since 
> that's the Tk part.
>> 
>> Are you seeing the CPU increase in the 'pd' process?  How are you 
> measuring
>> this?
>> 
>> .hc
>> 
>> On May 4, 2012, at 9:31 AM, katja wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I've installed Pd-extended 0.43 versions (Linux and OSX) from the
>>> autobuilds several times in the past year. The latest builds seem to
>>> work fine in many aspects, but they are still so CPU-hungry: ~ 50%
>>> more than Pd-extended 0.42. How come?
>>> 
>>> A while ago, the new PortAudio version was blamed
>>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/pd-list@iem.at/msg50357.html). Indeed,
>>> using Jack solves the load difference for OSX.
>>> 
>>> But on Debian I also observe a 50% load increase for the new
>>> Pd-extended. No matter if ALSA or Jack is used. Does anyone have
>>> similar observations with Linux builds?
>>> 
>>> BTW, I'm happy with Tk 8.5's antialiased font! Initially, I 
> feared
>>> that antialiasing was responsible for increased load on Debian, but
>>> disabling GUI updates did not make noticeable difference. It seems
>>> that antialiasing is done rather efficiently, the performance drop
>>> must be somewhere else.
>>> 
>>> Katja
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>