indeed I can't!
It has been a quite a while that I had attempted an implementation, and
on revisiting it now, I cannot detect any overhead.
Apologies for this wrong accusation and it looks that I can continue
with designing the patches using shmem!
Best,
Sebastian
cyrille henry wrote on 19/09/2021 10:22:
hello,
can you elaborate about share-mem lib overhead?
I'm not aware of such problem.
cheers
Cyrille
Le 18/09/2021 à 18:43, Sebastian Lexer a écrit :
Hi List,
I want to share memory between several instances of PD running on
separate reserved cores. I've tried the share-mem lib, but it has a
very high overhead.
Since I am writing custom externals for the puredata patches, I have
started to include writing the data to be shared into files on a
ramdisk. It does work quite nicely, but I am wondering whether some
more elegant solution could be done using the Memory-Mapped Files, or
are there any other simple and fast solutions around?
Has anyone on this list experience with this? I don't actually need
to share large data sets, mostly it's just bytes that indicate the
state of the patch. Network based solutions have proven to be too slow.
These patches will run on raspberry pi.
Thanks!
S
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
.
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
