I've always been puzzled by the fact that everything runs on a single
thread in Pd.
By default, Pd operates in "polling mode", i.e. the scheduler runs in
its own thread (the main thread) and communicates with the audio
callback via two lockfree ringbuffers (one for input, one for output).
The size of the ringbuffers is set by the ominous "delay" parameter in
the audio settings. The actual audio thread only reads/writes samples
from/to the ringbuffers.
If Pd operates in "callback mode" (= "callbacks" is ticked in the audio
settings), the scheduler runs directly in the audio callback. You can
save a little bit of latency, but it is less forgiving to CPU spikes or
non-realtime-safe operations.
Christof
On 22.08.2023 15:08, Joseph Larralde wrote:
Thanks Christof for the additional insight.
I've always been puzzled by the fact that everything runs on a single
thread in Pd.
I guess this single thread IS the audio thread because it processes
audio, and I've always heard that one must never perform too many
non-audio operations during an audio callback.
But as you say, Pd runs fine for the general user base which I am part of.
I'll probably give your version a try if I hit the limits with my
current (rapidly growing) project running on a Pi 3 B+, but can't make
any promises with my current schedule.
Thanks for your work anyways.
Best,
Joseph Larralde
--
freelance developer
www.josephlarralde.fr
Le 22/08/2023 à 11:55, Christof Ressi a écrit :
How well does it work?
It seems to work quite well. With synthetic benchmarks I can get a 6x
speedup on my 8 core machine, but I need to do some more practical
testing and benchmarking.
It looks like the repo is based off of 0.52?
I think it's based on 0.53. I want to rebase it on 0.54, but there
are lots of conflicts I need to resolve. It's definitely on my TODO
list. That's also why I haven't really made a formal announcement yet.
Multithreaded DSP would have been much higher on my list than
multi-channel,
Priorities are very subjective. Personally, I don't really think that
multithreaded DSP has high priority for the general user base, as
many patches seem to run fine on a single CPU. However, I do have
projects that reach or exceed the limits of a single CPU - even on a
beefy machine -, that's why I started working on this.
so I'm wondering if I could get away with using your tree as my
basis for a while :)
Actually, it would be great to have some testers apart from myself!
Christof
On 22.08.2023 10:32, Day Rush wrote:
How well does it work? It looks like the repo is based off of 0.52?
Multithreaded DSP would have been much higher on my list than
multi-channel, so I'm wondering if I could get away with using your
tree as my basis for a while :)
- d
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 at 01:17, Christof Ressi
<i...@christofressi.com> wrote:
To expand on Miller's reply:
Conceptually, messaging and DSP are two separate domains. Sending a
message from a perform routine violates this separation. Instead
you
should use a clock with delay 0 to defer the message to the
begin of the
next scheduler tick.
Miller already mentioned the greatest danger, but there are
other, more
subtle issues. DSP objects typically operate on the premise that
the
object's state won't change from the outside during the perform
routine.
For example, imagine a delay object with a buffer that can be
resized
with a message; by sending a Pd message from the perform
routine, it
might accidentally feed back into the object and reallocate the
buffer
while still in progress.
Unfortunately, very little of this is documented. Ideally, this
should
be covered in the externals-how-to
(https://github.com/pure-data/externals-howto); I just added an
item on
my (long) TODO list.
Finally, although Pd is currently single-threaded, this could
change in
the future. FWIW, here is a PoC for multi-threaded DSP:
https://github.com/spacechild1/pure-data/tree/multi-threading.
This is
only possible because perform routines may only use a restricted
set of
API functions - which, in my fork, are annoted with the (empty)
THREADSAFE macro (and made thread-safe, if necessary).
Christof
On 21.08.2023 20:55, Joseph Larralde wrote:
> Hmm, I see ... unfortunately my random bug is totally
unrelated to
> this weakness of my code.
> Thanks Miller for the explanation and pointers to examples !
> And thanks Claude for the extra example.
> I'll check all my objects to see if there are other ones I can
> consolidate.
>
> Cheers !
>
> Joseph
>
> Le 21/08/2023 à 19:08, Claude Heiland-Allen a écrit :
>> See bang~ in pure-data/src/d_misc.c for an example that uses
a clock
>> to send a message from DSP.
>>
>> On 21/08/2023 18:02, Miller Puckette wrote:
>>> The built-in objects "delay", "metro" and "pipe" use clocks in
>>> various ways.
>>>
>>> On 8/21/23 18:02, Joseph Larralde wrote:
>>>> I just read in an answer from Christof to Alexandre :
"never ever
>>>> send a Pd message directly from a perform routine ! Always
use a
>>>> clock !"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-dev mailing list
>> Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
--
GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@lists.iem.at
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
