----- Original Message ----- > From: katja <[email protected]> > To: pd-list <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:43 PM > Subject: Re: [PD] what makes Pd-extended 0.43 so CPU-hungry? > > On OSX I use 'Activity Monitor' for quick check of CPU load and > Shark.app for serious performance profiling, but for GNU/Linux I don't > know a good equivalent of Shark. So on Debian I just start top, and > for my live performance setup which does ~40% CPU load with > Pd-extended 0.42, it is ~60% with 0.43. Top makes distinction between > 'pdextended' and pd-gui, but heavy GUI use is reflected in increasing > percentages for Xorg process as well.
Have you compared with pd-l2ork in Debian? Without doing any direct measurements, I seem to remember the pd-0.43-ext nightly build looking sluggish on my laptop when moving around GUI objects, which I didn't see with pd-l2ork. -Jonathan > However, the load-increase with > Pd-extended 0.43 is on account of the pdextended process (with my > setups at least). Wish I could track that down to specific functions > like with Shark.app. > > In the case of OSX it was clearly the Apple dsp function calls > consuming a great deal of CPU time, which could be avoided by using an > external soundcard instead of the internal card, and Jack instead of > PortAudio. > > I've tried to use Oprofile on Debian, but this gives me a kernel > failure soon as I start sampling. Does anyone know of a fine > performance profiler for GNU/Linux? > > Katja > > > > On 5/4/12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I honestly don't know the cause, and haven't really checked on > numbers. I >> mostly work on my four year old laptop, and test by running patches I know >> (solitude is a good test of heavy CPU usage, it won't run on a machine > less >> than 1.6GHz, from my experience). >> >> As for drawing operations like anti-aliasing, those would not show up in > the >> 'pd' process, but rather the 'pd-gui' process, since > that's the Tk part. >> >> Are you seeing the CPU increase in the 'pd' process? How are you > measuring >> this? >> >> .hc >> >> On May 4, 2012, at 9:31 AM, katja wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I've installed Pd-extended 0.43 versions (Linux and OSX) from the >>> autobuilds several times in the past year. The latest builds seem to >>> work fine in many aspects, but they are still so CPU-hungry: ~ 50% >>> more than Pd-extended 0.42. How come? >>> >>> A while ago, the new PortAudio version was blamed >>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg50357.html). Indeed, >>> using Jack solves the load difference for OSX. >>> >>> But on Debian I also observe a 50% load increase for the new >>> Pd-extended. No matter if ALSA or Jack is used. Does anyone have >>> similar observations with Linux builds? >>> >>> BTW, I'm happy with Tk 8.5's antialiased font! Initially, I > feared >>> that antialiasing was responsible for increased load on Debian, but >>> disabling GUI updates did not make noticeable difference. It seems >>> that antialiasing is done rather efficiently, the performance drop >>> must be somewhere else. >>> >>> Katja >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> [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 > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
