[PD] Experiencing a higher CPU load with 0.47-0 and 0.47-1.

Dario Sanfilippo sanfilippo.dario at gmail.com
Wed Aug 3 11:17:28 CEST 2016


Hi, Miller.

The comparison was between 64bit versions of the software. Like a mentioned
in another email, there was ~15% higher CPU load (however accurate that
estimation is) in .47 when running 512 instantiations of a simple patch
with an [osc~]-driven [vd~] and [delwrite~]. I can try putting together a
list of the most used objects in my project to narrow down any potential
problem.

Cheers,
Dario

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 01:21 Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I just loaded a nice fat benchmark patch (based on smeck, the guitar
> processor) in a few different versions of Pd.  I got no difference between
> Pd-0.46-7 and pd-0.47-1 ... however, in each version the "64 bit" compile
> ran in about 85% of the CPU load that the non-64-bit version did.  Perhaps
> you're comparing 0.46 634 bit with 0.47 32 bit?
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:19:35AM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > Yes, the whole thing is baffling, but I gather something changed from
> 0.46
> > to 0.47 ... I've gt a coupld of benchmark patches I can try to see if I
> can
> > see what's going on.
> >
> > cheers
> > Miller
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:14:56PM +0200, cyrille henry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 27/06/2016 11:58, Dario Sanfilippo a écrit :
> > > >Hi, Christof.
> > > >
> > > >It is a rather large project and relatively new, so I'd prefer not to
> share it at this point as it still kind of a work in progress. I will try
> putting together some test patches isolating some of the most used objects
> and see if there's any significant change in the different PD versions when
> instantiating many of them.
> > > >
> > > >Cyrille: I'm just using PD's Load Meter patch. The test I performed
> had had just the patch on, without me doing anything. In 0.46-7, the
> average CPU load when turning DSP on is around 40-50%, with peaks at about
> 60-70% when acting on the patch. No dropouts experienced. In 0.47, the
> initial CPU load is around 60% or more and it gets to the point of
> producing audio dropouts when acting on the patch. So, empirically, 0.47
> does seem to have a different CPU load.
> > > >
> > >
> > > different cpu load: yes, but since you don't know the cpu frequency,
> you can't know if it's a higher load, a lower load, and if it's a
> significative change.
> > >
> > >
> > > >I can see the same behaviour by looking at Activity Monitor on OSX. I
> wouldn't know how else to measure the CPU load, though.
> > > i'm afraid it's the same problem with activity monitor.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > c
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for your help, guys.
> > > >
> > > >Dario
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 27 June 2016 at 10:00, cyrille henry <ch at chnry.net <mailto:
> ch at chnry.net>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    hello,
> > > >
> > > >    how are you doing cpu load measurement?
> > > >
> > > >    I find it very hard to do reliable measurement of cpu load
> nowadays, since computer have a variable cpu speed depending on load.
> > > >
> > > >    For exemple, pd CPU load can be at 75%, with CPU frequency at
> 800MHz. When increasing the patch complexities, the CPU frequency increase,
> and the apparent load reported by pd decrease.
> > > >
> > > >    On linux, you can bloc the processor to a fixed frequency, and
> then make reliable load measurement.
> > > >    But i don't know how to do than on OSX. Did you find a way?
> > > >    otherwise, your measurement are useless.
> > > >
> > > >    cheers
> > > >    c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    Le 27/06/2016 10:44, christof.ressi at gmx.at <mailto:
> christof.ressi at gmx.at> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >        Do you want to share your patch? I could test it on my
> machine with 0.46 and 0.47
> > > >
> > > >        -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >        Gesendet: Sonntag, 26 Juni 2016 um 13:27:23 Uhr
> > > >        Von: "Dario Sanfilippo" <sanfilippo.dario at gmail.com <mailto:
> sanfilippo.dario at gmail.com>>
> > > >        An: pd-list <pd-list at iem.at <mailto:pd-list at iem.at>>
> > > >        Betreff: [PD] Experiencing a higher CPU load with 0.47-0 and
> 0.47-1.
> > > >        Hi, list.
> > > >
> > > >        I'm loading the same patch with 0.46-7, 0.47-0 and 0.47-1 -
> all 64bit. The
> > > >        last two have a significantly higher CPU load. I'm on OSX
> 10.11.5.
> > > >
> > > >        Has any of you experienced anything similar?
> > > >
> > > >        I haven't changed my [vd~] objects into [delread4~], are they
> calling the
> > > >        same piece of code?
> > > >
> > > >        The patch is almost exclusively using signal objects, have
> some of these
> > > >        been modified in 0.47-0 and 0.47-1?
> > > >
> > > >        Thanks for your help.
> > > >
> > > >        Dario
> > > >        _______________________________________________
> > > >        Pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing
> list
> > > >        UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > > >
> > > >        _______________________________________________
> > > >        Pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list at lists.iem.at> mailing
> list
> > > >        UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > > >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160803/b8933bcc/attachment.html>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list