Hmm... several things changed that could be relevant. One thing that might be worth doing is running "pd -d 1" and seeing if there's any obvious difference in the amount of data flowing from Pd to the GUI process.
I gather that 'sid' refers to the very latest unstable version of Debian, so there's also a possibility that the X server itself is having trouble in some way...? cheers Miller On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 07:36:46PM +0300, Yury Bulka wrote: > Thank you for your reply, > > Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]> writes: > > > How much CPU does Pd (both halves of it) really use while it's acting > > slow ? That could be a big hint either way. In the process list («ps» > > or «top»), see whether «pd» has a big %, and see whether «pd-gui» has > > a big %. > > > I did the following experiment: > - opened 'top' in a terminal > - opened pd and created new file > ...the CPU is mostly idle > - with dsp turned off I tried to add one object (a non-existing [test] > one) and move it around > ...when I move the object (the window is already updating slowly, around 2 > fps), the > Xorg process raises to about 70% CPU usage and puredata process remains > at 2-5%. The command «ps -A | egrep -i 'pd|puredata'» gives the > following: > > 17 ? 00:00:13 kswapd0 > 783 ? 00:00:00 pppd > 1045 ? 00:08:51 mpd > 26605 pts/4 00:00:01 puredata > 26608 pts/4 00:00:00 pd-watchdog > > (I was running it with JACK, but running through ALSA gives the same > results with only additional puredata process). > > The same situation with Pd-extended (except the process name:). > > I will post my Xorg.log as an attachment... > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
