[PD] How to reduce CPU use on unused subpatches-abstracts?

[Mario Mey]

Thanks all for responding. After doing some tests, with suggestion from 
mail-list and from (Maelstorm), I want to show you the current structure 
of the complete patch (the same I wrote in forum):

/Main patch (meh_system.pd)//
//• OSC messaging (for the tablet), input and output (EQ), BPM, 
metronome, Beats-to-rec, mode selector, etc.//
//• FXs Console x2 (meh_console.pd)//
//- - FXs & group selector, X-Y pad, Hold button, some signal and 
message redirection, etc. (subpatches)//
//- - FXs groups x8 subpatches.//
//- - - FXs abstracts x100 (fx-*.pd) ***//
//• Sample Bank X8 (meh_bank.pd)//
//- - Control subpatch [pd toggle-color-seteos]//
//- - Sample - Resample subpatch [pd rec-sample-resample] ***//
//- - Looping subpatch [pd rec-looping] ***//
//- - Overdub subpatch [pd overdub] ***//
//- - Playing subpatch [pd play]//
//
/The ones that have ***, have [switch~] inside. Using throw~/catch~ and 
s~/r~, the audio signals (right/left, sample/resample) get inside and 
outside all that subpatches-abstracts.

After adding switch~ inside them, *I got these RESULTS*:

/•/ Ready-to-use, 2 FXs on: *26%* (there are 2 FXs always on, although 
they are muted)
/• /7 Banks playing, 1 Overdubbing, 2 FXs on: *32%*
/• /DSP off: *6%*

As you can see, from 47%, I achieve 20% less than before. I think it is 
very good! But, with DSP off, I have 6%.... and there's no message 
processing. Maelstorm told me that it is too much for doing nothing... 
and, we think that it is because of having all that abstracts there. If 
I delete them, I have 1-2%.

The FX Console abstract (main patch has 2 of them) has all the FXs 
inside (100 items). Each FX has 4 to 8 abstracts inside (most of them 
are DIY2 effects, by Hardoff, but it also has a Panel abstract and some 
others). So... 2 * 100 * 6 = 1200 abstracs, more or less. Even if they 
are swithched off... THEY ARE THERE. Maybe this increase the CPU to 6%?

I repeat the WIP thread, where MEH-SYSTEM can be downloaded and tested: 
http://puredata.hurleur.com/viewtopic.php?pid=37430
(it uses externals from PdExt and the zip includes ipoke2~.pd_linux for 
64bits (my version of ipoke~, by Katja), but it's only for overdubbing)

Thanks again.



El 07/08/13 04:57, Roman Haefeli escribió:
> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 08:40 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette wrote:
>>> Hmmm...  I was umnder the impression that, except for the overhead of block~
>>> and switch~ objects, there would be no difference in DSP execution time
>>> between a patch having lots of subpatches and one with the same amount of
>>> computation all thrown in one window.  I haven't made any measurements but
>>> theoreticall at least there shouldn't be any difference.
>> i once did make measurements, and they showed that your assumption is
>> correct.
>>
>> or at least, it showed that it *was* correct at that time. this was on a
>> P2-400MHz in 1998 or so, where a 16 channel spatialization patch would
>> eat about 95% of the CPU - regardless of whether you used a single huge
>> patch or organized the code into subpatches/abstractions.
>>
>> eventually i went for using abstractions, and let the PC run at 95% for
>> the 2 weeks show.
> I once made some informal tests to measure the overhead of [switch~]. It
> turned out it is quite big and if you're running hundreds or thousands
> instances of [switch~] you probably gain nothing by turning DSP off in
> subpatches. I don't know what the sweet spot is it seems using [switch~]
> is only worth for subpatches with a minimum amount of (DSP) complexity.
>
> Roman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at 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/20130807/fd89b5de/attachment.htm>