[PD] Experiencing a higher CPU load with 0.47-0 and 0.47-1.
Miller Puckette
msp at ucsd.edu
Wed Aug 3 20:47:26 CEST 2016
Aha... I tried again with a patch with lots of vd~/delwrite pairs and got
47 taking about 10% more CPU than 0.46. (That I didn't get 15 could be that
I had a different mix of objects than yours.) So something is wrong... I don't
know what yet. (I did fix a small bug in delay reading/writing that could be
affecting this someho but I can't imagine how :)
M
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:17:28AM +0000, Dario Sanfilippo wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list