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