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

[Miller Puckette]

Here's an idea ... perhaps your patch is generating hundreds of thousands
of symbols to instantiate all the abstractions, and this sould be making
gensym() run slowly.  To test this possibility easily you could change

#define HASHSIZE 1024

to 

#define HASHSIZE 65536

or so, recompile and see if that makes it run faster.

(Of course, I don't know why gensym() would be getting called periodically
when Pd is idling; perhaps you could find that out by profiling Pd?)

cheers
Miller

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:32:30PM -0300, Mario Mey wrote:
> 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
> 

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