[PD] CPU usage of GUI objects in subpatches
Miller Puckette
msp at ucsd.edu
Mon Jul 15 23:40:47 CEST 2013
I tried this with four versions of a subpatch, one with "nothing" (just an
inlet connected through to an outlet), one with a "float", one with hslider, and
one with a number box (not "number2", just control-3 number). Subtracting
out the control case, I sent 1000000 random numbers through and asked the
cputime object how much time elapsed, and got approximately:
float hsl number
closed 10 50 150
open 10 50 150
This was usin "until" to loop 1000000times. Trying the same thing with
"metro 0.001" gives:
closed <10 50 150
open <10 60 200
That wasn't at all what I was expecting to see!
This was on a core 2 duo 7600 running at 1.6 GHz (my patch wasn't CPU hungry
enough to make my CPU want to speed up), linux 3.6.3-1.fc17.x86_64 (Fedora)
cheers
Miller
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:18:00PM -0400, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 09:13 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I didn't test current Pd versions nor your fork, but up to 0.43 GUI
> >objects in subpatches or abstractions were a substantial and significant
> >CPU load when they are activated, even when invisible. So this is slow:
> >
> > [r data]
> > |
> > [hsl ...]
> > |
> > [s data-out]
> >
> >But this is fast:
> >
> > [r data]
> > |
> > | [hsl ...]
> > |/
> > [s data-out]
>
> Pd-l2ork version 20130528:
>
> I put a [inlet]---[hsl]---[outlet] in a subpatch and compared to a
> subpatch with [inlet]--[float]--[outlet].
>
> Measuring sending a random float to each subpatch. Hsl subpatch was
> between 0.005 and 0.006
> and float subpatch was 0.004.
>
> Measuring cpu usage with gnome-system-monitor with a [metro 1]
> driving the hsl subpatch:
> * when subpatch is un-vis'd and metro is off, cpu usage is around 15%
> * when subpatch is un-vis'd and metro is on, cpu usage is between
> 15-20% (using gnome-system-monitor so it's hard to discern the
> difference on the graph)
> * when subpatch is vis'd, cpu usage is around 60%
>
> So when the patch is vis'd, substantial and significant CPU load.
> When unvis'd, not so much.
>
> Debian wheezy, AMD64, pd-l2ork
>
> -Jonathan
>
> >
> >Maybe this has changed now with the latest versions, so I would
> >recommend to benchmark it again.
> >
> >Ciao
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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