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

[Mario Mey]

Oh... "*compile*"... I'm afraid of that word. Once (during some days), I 
tried to compile Pd... but with no good results.

I will try to download the source, look for a easy-to-compile 
tutorial... but, if it takes me so much time, I think I'll go on with 
the current version of PdExt (0.43.4). Maybe I will try it later... or 
later... or even more later.

To profile Pd, is there an option in my version, or I have to change 
code, like "#define PROFILE 1"?

Cheers.


El 07/08/13 16:53, Miller Puckette escribió:
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20130807/1422f2b6/attachment.htm>