Thanks for the feedback so far. > Please are you using a very fast machine ? did you ask to fluidsynth to play > sufficient number of notes ?
I'm on a Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz. I tested several midi files that have instruments playing on all 16 channels. Apparently the soundfonts I used were not polyphonic enough, you're right. Using FluidR3_GM.sf2 the cpu load looks better, but I'm yet quite far from the "perfect" scalability that your profiling interface gives you JJC. > How did you come to the conclusion that the synchronization overhead > dominates? Admittedly this might be a wrong/premature conclusion based on my observations + looking at the source code. I took a look at the callgraph generated with valgrind --tool=callgrind ./fluidsynth. Synchronization functions like g_mutex_lock() or g_cond_wait() are called quite often by fluid_mixer_thread_func(). Although it also reports to be not that expensive. Still I think it's worth evaluating what job openMP and other refactorings can do here. David Henningsson once told me that the parallel renderer was more like a (failed) experiment. So please see this current work as my little experiment. > I do wonder though why OpenMP can do a better job than the current code. openMP provides different scheduling strategies to process for loops. Also this restriction VOICES_PER_THREAD (==8) to avoid thread overhead seems quite magic to me (it probably worked well when David tested it, still, why is 8 the right number?). Overall I'm not sure whether openMP alone can do a better job. It definitely reduces complexity of the code. Additionally I want to revise the current implementation, like using a parallel logarithmic buffer reduction to mix audio between threads or rethinking data layout and memory accesses in general, hoping this makes it more efficient. Tom _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev