Aha... I tried again with a patch with lots of vd~/delwrite pairs and got 47 taking about 10% more CPU than 0.46. (That I didn't get 15 could be that I had a different mix of objects than yours.) So something is wrong... I don't know what yet. (I did fix a small bug in delay reading/writing that could be affecting this someho but I can't imagine how :)
M On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:17:28AM +0000, Dario Sanfilippo wrote: > Hi, Miller. > > The comparison was between 64bit versions of the software. Like a mentioned > in another email, there was ~15% higher CPU load (however accurate that > estimation is) in .47 when running 512 instantiations of a simple patch > with an [osc~]-driven [vd~] and [delwrite~]. I can try putting together a > list of the most used objects in my project to narrow down any potential > problem. > > Cheers, > Dario > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 at 01:21 Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I just loaded a nice fat benchmark patch (based on smeck, the guitar > > processor) in a few different versions of Pd. I got no difference between > > Pd-0.46-7 and pd-0.47-1 ... however, in each version the "64 bit" compile > > ran in about 85% of the CPU load that the non-64-bit version did. Perhaps > > you're comparing 0.46 634 bit with 0.47 32 bit? > > > > cheers > > Miller > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:19:35AM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote: > > > Yes, the whole thing is baffling, but I gather something changed from > > 0.46 > > > to 0.47 ... I've gt a coupld of benchmark patches I can try to see if I > > can > > > see what's going on. > > > > > > cheers > > > Miller > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:14:56PM +0200, cyrille henry wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/06/2016 11:58, Dario Sanfilippo a écrit : > > > > >Hi, Christof. > > > > > > > > > >It is a rather large project and relatively new, so I'd prefer not to > > share it at this point as it still kind of a work in progress. I will try > > putting together some test patches isolating some of the most used objects > > and see if there's any significant change in the different PD versions when > > instantiating many of them. > > > > > > > > > >Cyrille: I'm just using PD's Load Meter patch. The test I performed > > had had just the patch on, without me doing anything. In 0.46-7, the > > average CPU load when turning DSP on is around 40-50%, with peaks at about > > 60-70% when acting on the patch. No dropouts experienced. In 0.47, the > > initial CPU load is around 60% or more and it gets to the point of > > producing audio dropouts when acting on the patch. So, empirically, 0.47 > > does seem to have a different CPU load. > > > > > > > > > > > > > different cpu load: yes, but since you don't know the cpu frequency, > > you can't know if it's a higher load, a lower load, and if it's a > > significative change. > > > > > > > > > > > > >I can see the same behaviour by looking at Activity Monitor on OSX. I > > wouldn't know how else to measure the CPU load, though. > > > > i'm afraid it's the same problem with activity monitor. > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for your help, guys. > > > > > > > > > >Dario > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 27 June 2016 at 10:00, cyrille henry <[email protected] <mailto: > > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hello, > > > > > > > > > > how are you doing cpu load measurement? > > > > > > > > > > I find it very hard to do reliable measurement of cpu load > > nowadays, since computer have a variable cpu speed depending on load. > > > > > > > > > > For exemple, pd CPU load can be at 75%, with CPU frequency at > > 800MHz. When increasing the patch complexities, the CPU frequency increase, > > and the apparent load reported by pd decrease. > > > > > > > > > > On linux, you can bloc the processor to a fixed frequency, and > > then make reliable load measurement. > > > > > But i don't know how to do than on OSX. Did you find a way? > > > > > otherwise, your measurement are useless. > > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/06/2016 10:44, [email protected] <mailto: > > [email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > Do you want to share your patch? I could test it on my > > machine with 0.46 and 0.47 > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26 Juni 2016 um 13:27:23 Uhr > > > > > Von: "Dario Sanfilippo" <[email protected] <mailto: > > [email protected]>> > > > > > An: pd-list <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > Betreff: [PD] Experiencing a higher CPU load with 0.47-0 and > > 0.47-1. > > > > > Hi, list. > > > > > > > > > > I'm loading the same patch with 0.46-7, 0.47-0 and 0.47-1 - > > all 64bit. The > > > > > last two have a significantly higher CPU load. I'm on OSX > > 10.11.5. > > > > > > > > > > Has any of you experienced anything similar? > > > > > > > > > > I haven't changed my [vd~] objects into [delread4~], are they > > calling the > > > > > same piece of code? > > > > > > > > > > The patch is almost exclusively using signal objects, have > > some of these > > > > > been modified in 0.47-0 and 0.47-1? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > > > Dario > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing > > list > > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing > > list > > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > > >[email protected] mailing list > > > > >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > [email protected] mailing list > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > [email protected] mailing list > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
