Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Dafydd Hughes wrote: I never figured out exactly why the climb was happening, but I found that it happened when I turned off dsp in the abstraction, but left the non-dsp elements running, ie continually trying to pass messages to line~ and vd~ objects etc. Switching off the mechanics when switching off dsp solved it for me. Yes, sending many messages to a vline~ in a switch~'d off subpatch causes CPU usage to rise dramatically. I nearly froze my box with Pd in RT mode when I set the metro period to 1ms and switch~'d the subpatch off, with the subpatch switch~'d on the cpu usage remains stable. See attached test patch... Why this is happening: Sending a message to vline~ creates a t_vseg, which are stored in a sorted linear linked list, which means the time taken to add each new line segment would be O(n), where n is the number of existing line segments. If the subpatch containing vline~ is switch~'d off, the t_vseg's aren't removed by the dsp perform routine, which means that CPU usage rises quadratically if messages are sent to the vline~ at a constant rate (I think, it's been a while since I analyzed algorithmic time complexity). A solution: Use a better data structure than a linked list; a balanced tree would reduce time complexity to O(log n) instead of O(n) (if I remember correctly), admittedly at the cost of harder implementation. Workaround: Don't send messages to a switch~'d off vline~. Claude -- http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org #N canvas 0 0 450 300 10; #N canvas 0 0 450 300 \$0-subpatch 0; #X obj 28 17 inlet; #X obj 26 270 outlet~; #X obj 208 269 switch~; #X obj 208 19 inlet; #X obj 29 48 t b b; #X obj 59 74 random 100; #X obj 24 94 random 100; #X obj 23 121 pack f f; #X obj 24 164 vline~; #X connect 0 0 4 0; #X connect 3 0 2 0; #X connect 4 0 6 0; #X connect 4 1 5 0; #X connect 5 0 7 1; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 7 0 8 0; #X connect 8 0 1 0; #X restore 68 117 pd \$0-subpatch; #X obj 161 67 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X obj 68 68 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1 ; #X obj 197 67 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X msg 197 90 \; pd dsp \$1; #X obj 302 88 metro 1000; #X obj 302 111 t b b; #X obj 302 133 cputime; #X obj 302 64 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X floatatom 302 165 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X floatatom 119 67 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X obj 68 91 metro 10; #X text 14 205 cputime climbs when many messages are sent to a vline~ in a switched off subpatch...; #X connect 1 0 0 1; #X connect 2 0 11 0; #X connect 3 0 4 0; #X connect 5 0 6 0; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 6 1 7 1; #X connect 7 0 9 0; #X connect 8 0 5 0; #X connect 10 0 11 1; #X connect 11 0 0 0; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
So just use this for now: [X] [inlet messages] | | [t f f]_ | | || [switch] [spigot] | [vline~] ~Kyle On 6/12/07, Claude Heiland-Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dafydd Hughes wrote: I never figured out exactly why the climb was happening, but I found that it happened when I turned off dsp in the abstraction, but left the non-dsp elements running, ie continually trying to pass messages to line~ and vd~ objects etc. Switching off the mechanics when switching off dsp solved it for me. Yes, sending many messages to a vline~ in a switch~'d off subpatch causes CPU usage to rise dramatically. I nearly froze my box with Pd in RT mode when I set the metro period to 1ms and switch~'d the subpatch off, with the subpatch switch~'d on the cpu usage remains stable. See attached test patch... Why this is happening: Sending a message to vline~ creates a t_vseg, which are stored in a sorted linear linked list, which means the time taken to add each new line segment would be O(n), where n is the number of existing line segments. If the subpatch containing vline~ is switch~'d off, the t_vseg's aren't removed by the dsp perform routine, which means that CPU usage rises quadratically if messages are sent to the vline~ at a constant rate (I think, it's been a while since I analyzed algorithmic time complexity). A solution: Use a better data structure than a linked list; a balanced tree would reduce time complexity to O(log n) instead of O(n) (if I remember correctly), admittedly at the cost of harder implementation. Workaround: Don't send messages to a switch~'d off vline~. Claude -- http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org #N canvas 0 0 450 300 10; #N canvas 0 0 450 300 \$0-subpatch 0; #X obj 28 17 inlet; #X obj 26 270 outlet~; #X obj 208 269 switch~; #X obj 208 19 inlet; #X obj 29 48 t b b; #X obj 59 74 random 100; #X obj 24 94 random 100; #X obj 23 121 pack f f; #X obj 24 164 vline~; #X connect 0 0 4 0; #X connect 3 0 2 0; #X connect 4 0 6 0; #X connect 4 1 5 0; #X connect 5 0 7 1; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 7 0 8 0; #X connect 8 0 1 0; #X restore 68 117 pd \$0-subpatch; #X obj 161 67 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X obj 68 68 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1 ; #X obj 197 67 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X msg 197 90 \; pd dsp \$1; #X obj 302 88 metro 1000; #X obj 302 111 t b b; #X obj 302 133 cputime; #X obj 302 64 tgl 15 0 empty empty empty 17 7 0 10 -262144 -1 -1 0 1; #X floatatom 302 165 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X floatatom 119 67 5 0 0 0 - - -; #X obj 68 91 metro 10; #X text 14 205 cputime climbs when many messages are sent to a vline~ in a switched off subpatch...; #X connect 1 0 0 1; #X connect 2 0 11 0; #X connect 3 0 4 0; #X connect 5 0 6 0; #X connect 6 0 7 0; #X connect 6 1 7 1; #X connect 7 0 9 0; #X connect 8 0 5 0; #X connect 10 0 11 1; #X connect 11 0 0 0; ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- - - - -- http://perhapsidid.wordpress.com ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Ha! Thanks, Kyle. Actually, it's mostly based on David Golightly's granular delay, which is a really elegant piece of work, and without which I never would have been able to try this. I ended up rewriting it without the scheduler, and changed some other stuff too. I'm halfway through another, but here's the most recent, which should be way more efficient and talks OSC. Disclaimer: it's still pretty old and has lots of my dumb patching! http://sideshowmedia.ca/zips/lois.zip So strange that weirdness isn't getting duplicated. I wonder what's up... cheers dafydd On 6/6/07, Kyle Klipowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No problems here on a G4 PowerBook, but this delay is pretty rad, do you have any more?! ~Kyle On 6/6/07, Dafydd Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks Okay - I think this is more or less the same patch, with a couple of minor changes: http://sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip Oddly, I can't reproduce my original problem, although some fascinating new things have shown up. Perhaps it was a PowerPC issue? (I'm now on a MacBook) Try switching on off the main dsp and test_lois. On my computer (extended test 6 - delays not working in later tests) cputime goes up slightly when I turn dsp off. I never figured out exactly why the climb was happening, but I found that it happened when I turned off dsp in the abstraction, but left the non-dsp elements running, ie continually trying to pass messages to line~ and vd~ objects etc. Switching off the mechanics when switching off dsp solved it for me. I hope this helps! I'd love to hear if this test patch climbs on a PowerPC still. cheers dafydd On 6/6/07, Phil Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Derek, I'm not positive about this, but I think I've traced the CPU-climb to the [moog~] filter. It has an odd behavior that can be broken into three phases: 1) no audio greater than zero amplitude has passed through it yet (since patch load) 2) audio of some amplitude 0 passes through 3) audio passing through goes back to zero amplitude At 3) (or, more accurately, several seconds after), its CPU usage climbs fairly dramatically, only to drop down again when the amplitude of the audio goes up again. Something in the filter model doesn't like zero amplitude, but only after it's first processed something greater than zero. I meant to test this more rigorously, but got sidetracked. At any rate, when I switch~ the [moog~] filter out, CPU usage holds steady. To be clear, I don't think this relates to [switch~]. I'm on a Macbook Pro, currently running 0.39rc2. Phil Derek Holzer wrote: Hi Phil, just to keep this in people's minds... I have exact same problem described in these emails with my Particle Chamber granular synthesis patch. It has 32 switch~ed voices. Using one instance seems to be OK, but two or more leads to exponentially-growing CPU usage that eventually makes PD unresponsive to the GUI (and eventually would probably crash PD if I let it go on...) I guess this could relate to the isn't the GUI supposed to have lower priority thanprocess? thread, since this particular problem makes PD a bit unusable for the kind of performances I want to be doing with it. The fact that PD lacks a usable voice-allocation method (i.e. CPU resources can be allocated and de-allocated to a voice, something which switch~ has a bug with, and which Nqpoly~ and so on does not do at all) means that I must start looking into SuperCollider to work with my polyphonic granular synthesis stuff. Sad but true... d. Phil Stone wrote: Hi, I'm getting a slow-but-steady climbing CPU when running some synthesis patches. I (like the poster below) have sub-modules that can be switch~ed on and off. An archive search turned up the following un-replied post: Hi all Okay. I'm stumped. Recently, I've noticed that my cpu meter has been steadily rising. I think I may have found the culprit. A while back I thought I'd put a power switch (just a switch~ object) on my poor-man's granular delay line, as my performance patches are getting a bit bulky. Try this (if you have the time): http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip cputest.pd: (needs expr, but I think that's all) 1. turn on audio in pd, but leave the power (p toggle) in lois off. Watch the cpu meter climb (over a period of 5 minutes or so - the toggle prints the cputime every 10 seconds). On my computer (G4 Powerbook, HCS extended 0.38.4) it starts around 5% and hits 10% after 5 minutes. 2. Do the same with lois on. For me, cpu hovers around 13-14%. No increase. 3. Repeat step 1. After 10-15 minutes, cputime is higher than with lois on. Switch lois on, and cpu drops. Huh?
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Hi Phil, just to keep this in people's minds... I have exact same problem described in these emails with my Particle Chamber granular synthesis patch. It has 32 switch~ed voices. Using one instance seems to be OK, but two or more leads to exponentially-growing CPU usage that eventually makes PD unresponsive to the GUI (and eventually would probably crash PD if I let it go on...) I guess this could relate to the isn't the GUI supposed to have lower priority thanprocess? thread, since this particular problem makes PD a bit unusable for the kind of performances I want to be doing with it. The fact that PD lacks a usable voice-allocation method (i.e. CPU resources can be allocated and de-allocated to a voice, something which switch~ has a bug with, and which Nqpoly~ and so on does not do at all) means that I must start looking into SuperCollider to work with my polyphonic granular synthesis stuff. Sad but true... d. Phil Stone wrote: Hi, I'm getting a slow-but-steady climbing CPU when running some synthesis patches. I (like the poster below) have sub-modules that can be switch~ed on and off. An archive search turned up the following un-replied post: Hi all Okay. I'm stumped. Recently, I've noticed that my cpu meter has been steadily rising. I think I may have found the culprit. A while back I thought I'd put a power switch (just a switch~ object) on my poor-man's granular delay line, as my performance patches are getting a bit bulky. Try this (if you have the time): http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip cputest.pd: (needs expr, but I think that's all) 1. turn on audio in pd, but leave the power (p toggle) in lois off. Watch the cpu meter climb (over a period of 5 minutes or so - the toggle prints the cputime every 10 seconds). On my computer (G4 Powerbook, HCS extended 0.38.4) it starts around 5% and hits 10% after 5 minutes. 2. Do the same with lois on. For me, cpu hovers around 13-14%. No increase. 3. Repeat step 1. After 10-15 minutes, cputime is higher than with lois on. Switch lois on, and cpu drops. Huh? I have no idea what's going on, but am I missing something important? Thanks in advance. cheers dafydd Does anybody have any insight on this? I don't remember this happening until fairly recently, but don't know if it dates to when I started switch~ing modules. I'm currently running 0.39.2-extended RC1 on a MacBook Pro. Phil Stone ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 109: Lost in useless territory ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Ooops! File not found! Dafydd...could you re-post your test patch please? http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip thx, d. Derek Holzer wrote: One test patch came up earlier in thread: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2007-04/049372.html -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 104: Listen in total darkness, or in a very large room, very quietly ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Oh gosh... I think I can remember what it involved, but I don't think I have the patch anymore. Let me see if I can dig it up. cheers dafydd On 6/6/07, Derek Holzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ooops! File not found! Dafydd...could you re-post your test patch please? http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip thx, d. Derek Holzer wrote: One test patch came up earlier in thread: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2007-04/049372.html -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 104: Listen in total darkness, or in a very large room, very quietly -- www.sideshowmedia.ca skype: chickeninthegrass ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Hi Derek, I'm not positive about this, but I think I've traced the CPU-climb to the [moog~] filter. It has an odd behavior that can be broken into three phases: 1) no audio greater than zero amplitude has passed through it yet (since patch load) 2) audio of some amplitude 0 passes through 3) audio passing through goes back to zero amplitude At 3) (or, more accurately, several seconds after), its CPU usage climbs fairly dramatically, only to drop down again when the amplitude of the audio goes up again. Something in the filter model doesn't like zero amplitude, but only after it's first processed something greater than zero. I meant to test this more rigorously, but got sidetracked. At any rate, when I switch~ the [moog~] filter out, CPU usage holds steady. To be clear, I don't think this relates to [switch~]. I'm on a Macbook Pro, currently running 0.39rc2. Phil Derek Holzer wrote: Hi Phil, just to keep this in people's minds... I have exact same problem described in these emails with my Particle Chamber granular synthesis patch. It has 32 switch~ed voices. Using one instance seems to be OK, but two or more leads to exponentially-growing CPU usage that eventually makes PD unresponsive to the GUI (and eventually would probably crash PD if I let it go on...) I guess this could relate to the isn't the GUI supposed to have lower priority thanprocess? thread, since this particular problem makes PD a bit unusable for the kind of performances I want to be doing with it. The fact that PD lacks a usable voice-allocation method (i.e. CPU resources can be allocated and de-allocated to a voice, something which switch~ has a bug with, and which Nqpoly~ and so on does not do at all) means that I must start looking into SuperCollider to work with my polyphonic granular synthesis stuff. Sad but true... d. Phil Stone wrote: Hi, I'm getting a slow-but-steady climbing CPU when running some synthesis patches. I (like the poster below) have sub-modules that can be switch~ed on and off. An archive search turned up the following un-replied post: Hi all Okay. I'm stumped. Recently, I've noticed that my cpu meter has been steadily rising. I think I may have found the culprit. A while back I thought I'd put a power switch (just a switch~ object) on my poor-man's granular delay line, as my performance patches are getting a bit bulky. Try this (if you have the time): http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip cputest.pd: (needs expr, but I think that's all) 1. turn on audio in pd, but leave the power (p toggle) in lois off. Watch the cpu meter climb (over a period of 5 minutes or so - the toggle prints the cputime every 10 seconds). On my computer (G4 Powerbook, HCS extended 0.38.4) it starts around 5% and hits 10% after 5 minutes. 2. Do the same with lois on. For me, cpu hovers around 13-14%. No increase. 3. Repeat step 1. After 10-15 minutes, cputime is higher than with lois on. Switch lois on, and cpu drops. Huh? I have no idea what's going on, but am I missing something important? Thanks in advance. cheers dafydd Does anybody have any insight on this? I don't remember this happening until fairly recently, but don't know if it dates to when I started switch~ing modules. I'm currently running 0.39.2-extended RC1 on a MacBook Pro. Phil Stone ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
This could almost be the denormal problem again. Is it an Intel processor on the MacBook? Intels are notorious for poor handling of denormal numbers, which occur when the mantissa (decimal places) of a number representing an audio signal becomes too long (such as happens with reverb tails, etc). Check the archives for more than just a bit of discussion on this, with some solutions (?) and certainly some workarounds. Sounds like I need to look deeper into my own patches as well, to find this CPU climbing business in my granulators. I find it most weird that one instance has no issues, but two or more cause problems. It's like they interfere with each other. I rigorously checked all send/receive pairs and such, so I don't know what it could be at this point. Except grossly inconvenient! d. Phil Stone wrote: Hi Derek, I'm not positive about this, but I think I've traced the CPU-climb to the [moog~] filter. It has an odd behavior that can be broken into three phases: 1) no audio greater than zero amplitude has passed through it yet (since patch load) 2) audio of some amplitude 0 passes through 3) audio passing through goes back to zero amplitude At 3) (or, more accurately, several seconds after), its CPU usage climbs fairly dramatically, only to drop down again when the amplitude of the audio goes up again. Something in the filter model doesn't like zero amplitude, but only after it's first processed something greater than zero. I meant to test this more rigorously, but got sidetracked. At any rate, when I switch~ the [moog~] filter out, CPU usage holds steady. To be clear, I don't think this relates to [switch~]. I'm on a Macbook Pro, currently running 0.39rc2. -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 64: Don't stress one thing more than another ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Derek Holzer wrote: This could almost be the denormal problem again. Is it an Intel processor on the MacBook? Intels are notorious for poor handling of denormal numbers, which occur when the mantissa (decimal places) of a number representing an audio signal becomes too long (such as happens with reverb tails, etc). Check the archives for more than just a bit of discussion on this, with some solutions (?) and certainly some workarounds. Yes, it's an Intel Core Duo in the MacBook. When I first noticed this pattern, I thought it sounded like denormalling, but I dismissed the idea, thinking that Core Duo's couldn't *still* have this problem. How wrong I was. Your reply prompted me to do a little web searching. See: http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/subnormal/ and notice how abysmally the Core Duo performs in denormal situations -- worse than previous Intels, if this benchmark is to be believed. Thank you (and others who mentioned this) for pushing me past the can't be stage. I'll look into workarounds. Phil ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Hi folks Okay - I think this is more or less the same patch, with a couple of minor changes: http://sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip Oddly, I can't reproduce my original problem, although some fascinating new things have shown up. Perhaps it was a PowerPC issue? (I'm now on a MacBook) Try switching on off the main dsp and test_lois. On my computer (extended test 6 - delays not working in later tests) cputime goes up slightly when I turn dsp off. I never figured out exactly why the climb was happening, but I found that it happened when I turned off dsp in the abstraction, but left the non-dsp elements running, ie continually trying to pass messages to line~ and vd~ objects etc. Switching off the mechanics when switching off dsp solved it for me. I hope this helps! I'd love to hear if this test patch climbs on a PowerPC still. cheers dafydd On 6/6/07, Phil Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Derek, I'm not positive about this, but I think I've traced the CPU-climb to the [moog~] filter. It has an odd behavior that can be broken into three phases: 1) no audio greater than zero amplitude has passed through it yet (since patch load) 2) audio of some amplitude 0 passes through 3) audio passing through goes back to zero amplitude At 3) (or, more accurately, several seconds after), its CPU usage climbs fairly dramatically, only to drop down again when the amplitude of the audio goes up again. Something in the filter model doesn't like zero amplitude, but only after it's first processed something greater than zero. I meant to test this more rigorously, but got sidetracked. At any rate, when I switch~ the [moog~] filter out, CPU usage holds steady. To be clear, I don't think this relates to [switch~]. I'm on a Macbook Pro, currently running 0.39rc2. Phil Derek Holzer wrote: Hi Phil, just to keep this in people's minds... I have exact same problem described in these emails with my Particle Chamber granular synthesis patch. It has 32 switch~ed voices. Using one instance seems to be OK, but two or more leads to exponentially-growing CPU usage that eventually makes PD unresponsive to the GUI (and eventually would probably crash PD if I let it go on...) I guess this could relate to the isn't the GUI supposed to have lower priority thanprocess? thread, since this particular problem makes PD a bit unusable for the kind of performances I want to be doing with it. The fact that PD lacks a usable voice-allocation method (i.e. CPU resources can be allocated and de-allocated to a voice, something which switch~ has a bug with, and which Nqpoly~ and so on does not do at all) means that I must start looking into SuperCollider to work with my polyphonic granular synthesis stuff. Sad but true... d. Phil Stone wrote: Hi, I'm getting a slow-but-steady climbing CPU when running some synthesis patches. I (like the poster below) have sub-modules that can be switch~ed on and off. An archive search turned up the following un-replied post: Hi all Okay. I'm stumped. Recently, I've noticed that my cpu meter has been steadily rising. I think I may have found the culprit. A while back I thought I'd put a power switch (just a switch~ object) on my poor-man's granular delay line, as my performance patches are getting a bit bulky. Try this (if you have the time): http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip cputest.pd: (needs expr, but I think that's all) 1. turn on audio in pd, but leave the power (p toggle) in lois off. Watch the cpu meter climb (over a period of 5 minutes or so - the toggle prints the cputime every 10 seconds). On my computer (G4 Powerbook, HCS extended 0.38.4) it starts around 5% and hits 10% after 5 minutes. 2. Do the same with lois on. For me, cpu hovers around 13-14%. No increase. 3. Repeat step 1. After 10-15 minutes, cputime is higher than with lois on. Switch lois on, and cpu drops. Huh? I have no idea what's going on, but am I missing something important? Thanks in advance. cheers dafydd Does anybody have any insight on this? I don't remember this happening until fairly recently, but don't know if it dates to when I started switch~ing modules. I'm currently running 0.39.2-extended RC1 on a MacBook Pro. Phil Stone ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- www.sideshowmedia.ca skype: chickeninthegrass ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] switch~ cputime climbing
Hi, I'm getting a slow-but-steady climbing CPU when running some synthesis patches. I (like the poster below) have sub-modules that can be switch~ed on and off. An archive search turned up the following un-replied post: Hi all Okay. I'm stumped. Recently, I've noticed that my cpu meter has been steadily rising. I think I may have found the culprit. A while back I thought I'd put a power switch (just a switch~ object) on my poor-man's granular delay line, as my performance patches are getting a bit bulky. Try this (if you have the time): http://www.sideshowmedia.ca/cputest.zip cputest.pd: (needs expr, but I think that's all) 1. turn on audio in pd, but leave the power (p toggle) in lois off. Watch the cpu meter climb (over a period of 5 minutes or so - the toggle prints the cputime every 10 seconds). On my computer (G4 Powerbook, HCS extended 0.38.4) it starts around 5% and hits 10% after 5 minutes. 2. Do the same with lois on. For me, cpu hovers around 13-14%. No increase. 3. Repeat step 1. After 10-15 minutes, cputime is higher than with lois on. Switch lois on, and cpu drops. Huh? I have no idea what's going on, but am I missing something important? Thanks in advance. cheers dafydd Does anybody have any insight on this? I don't remember this happening until fairly recently, but don't know if it dates to when I started switch~ing modules. I'm currently running 0.39.2-extended RC1 on a MacBook Pro. Phil Stone ___ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
