Thanks all for responding. After doing some tests, with suggestion from mail-list and from (Maelstorm), I want to show you the current structure of the complete patch (the same I wrote in forum):
/Main patch (meh_system.pd)// //• OSC messaging (for the tablet), input and output (EQ), BPM, metronome, Beats-to-rec, mode selector, etc.// //• FXs Console x2 (meh_console.pd)// //- - FXs & group selector, X-Y pad, Hold button, some signal and message redirection, etc. (subpatches)// //- - FXs groups x8 subpatches.// //- - - FXs abstracts x100 (fx-*.pd) ***// //• Sample Bank X8 (meh_bank.pd)// //- - Control subpatch [pd toggle-color-seteos]// //- - Sample - Resample subpatch [pd rec-sample-resample] ***// //- - Looping subpatch [pd rec-looping] ***// //- - Overdub subpatch [pd overdub] ***// //- - Playing subpatch [pd play]// // /The ones that have ***, have [switch~] inside. Using throw~/catch~ and s~/r~, the audio signals (right/left, sample/resample) get inside and outside all that subpatches-abstracts.
After adding switch~ inside them, *I got these RESULTS*:
/•/ Ready-to-use, 2 FXs on: *26%* (there are 2 FXs always on, although they are muted) /• /7 Banks playing, 1 Overdubbing, 2 FXs on: *32%* /• /DSP off: *6%*
As you can see, from 47%, I achieve 20% less than before. I think it is very good! But, with DSP off, I have 6%.... and there's no message processing. Maelstorm told me that it is too much for doing nothing... and, we think that it is because of having all that abstracts there. If I delete them, I have 1-2%.
The FX Console abstract (main patch has 2 of them) has all the FXs inside (100 items). Each FX has 4 to 8 abstracts inside (most of them are DIY2 effects, by Hardoff, but it also has a Panel abstract and some others). So... 2 * 100 * 6 = 1200 abstracs, more or less. Even if they are swithched off... THEY ARE THERE. Maybe this increase the CPU to 6%?
I repeat the WIP thread, where MEH-SYSTEM can be downloaded and tested: http://puredata.hurleur.com/viewtopic.php?pid=37430 (it uses externals from PdExt and the zip includes ipoke2~.pd_linux for 64bits (my version of ipoke~, by Katja), but it's only for overdubbing)
Thanks again.
El 07/08/13 04:57, Roman Haefeli escribió:
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 08:40 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 08/07/13 03:15, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hmmm... I was umnder the impression that, except for the overhead of block~ and switch~ objects, there would be no difference in DSP execution time between a patch having lots of subpatches and one with the same amount of computation all thrown in one window. I haven't made any measurements but theoreticall at least there shouldn't be any difference.
i once did make measurements, and they showed that your assumption is correct.
or at least, it showed that it *was* correct at that time. this was on a P2-400MHz in 1998 or so, where a 16 channel spatialization patch would eat about 95% of the CPU - regardless of whether you used a single huge patch or organized the code into subpatches/abstractions.
eventually i went for using abstractions, and let the PC run at 95% for the 2 weeks show.
I once made some informal tests to measure the overhead of [switch~]. It turned out it is quite big and if you're running hundreds or thousands instances of [switch~] you probably gain nothing by turning DSP off in subpatches. I don't know what the sweet spot is it seems using [switch~] is only worth for subpatches with a minimum amount of (DSP) complexity.
Roman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list