Hi Chris, > First of all CPU load is a silly > measure.[...] For > a user only wall-clock time matters. > sure. I did not yet take times, but the new version is definitely faster than the old one. Of course 3 busy-waiting cpus and only one doing something useful will stress a 4-core cpu the same as 4 useful threads - the same in 'top', different wall clock time.
> Second, read about Amdahl's law > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law > It matters. > I know Amdahl's law, (good old parallel programming lectures) but I thought enblends work was somewhat simpler to split up than it seems. > The current implementation does _not_ scale > well beyond two processors. The reasons for > this are yet unknown. You are welcome to run > Enblend with your favorite profiler, identify > the bottleneck(s), and send me a bunch of > patches that rectify the congestion. > Can you propose a (free) multi-thread profiler for linux? (Looking out for one for some time now...) If so, I'll have a look at it, enough of exploiting hugin/panotools now, time to give something back ;) > IMO, you did nothing wrong. My results are > similar. Fine :) I will check later how much faster enblend has become. I'm missing the output which image is processed (or, is finished being processed) a little... Thanks for reply :) Benjamin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
