I tried your patch with the [bob~] object shipped with the Windows binaries. I clearly get subnormals! It's actually no wonder because there isn't any protection against subnormals in the code (at least I couldn't spot it). But the weird thing is: the [bob~] I compiled myself would also show subnormals in your patch but the CPU load is not affected...
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 um 23:47 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: "pd-list@lists.iem.at" pd-list@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: Re: Re: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
Without -O flags you get debug-level and all function inlining is disabled, depending on the code it can make a huge difference indeed. But Pd is probably compiled with at least -O2. So the flags don't make much difference. The compiler? Doesn't Miller compile with MinGW nowadays, I don't know. MinGW brings its own standard C libs, which may implement math functions differently than MS. But regarding denormals I guess they both respect the IEEE 754 standard.
You can check if you really have subnormals using attached patch denorm-test.pd you. The patch tests lop~, change it to bob~.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
the SSE optimizations don't seem to matter at all. skipping -ffast-math gives a slight overall CPU rise, while skipping -O3 gives me huge CPU rise (20 bob~ filters are already to much for one core). Even when skipping all of those flags, the denormals issue is still not present.
Maybe it has something to do with the compiler?
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 um 22:47 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at, "pd-list@lists.iem.at" pd-list@lists.iem.at Betreff: Re: Re: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
I'm curious to know if the flags do flush denormals on your processor. Forgot to mention that '-O3 -ffast-math' are also set, platform-independent. So if you have a chance to try which flag does something... It's just curiosity.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
Hi Katja,
Even if your test reveals a beneficial effect from compiler flags, it is better when denormals are detected and flushed in the C code.
definitely! Maybe using the PD_BIGORSMALL macro on each filter state at the end of the DSP routine does the trick, just like in all the other recursive filters in Pd.
Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Betreff: Re: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
Hi Christof,
Makefile.pdlibbuilder passes flags '-march=pentium4 -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse' for optimization to the compiler on Windows. You could try compiling without (some of) these flags to see if they are responsible for the different behavior. Makefile-defined optimization flags can be overriden with argument CFLAGS given on command line.
The effect of optimization flags on denormals varies per processor type, unfortunately. When we had denormals on Raspberry Pi ARMv6 they wouldn't go away no matter what flags, is what I remember. Even if your test reveals a beneficial effect from compiler flags, it is better when denormals are detected and flushed in the C code. Anyway, it is still interesting to know what makes the difference.
Katja
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
Hmmm... I compiled [bob~] myself with MinGW and pd-lib-builder and I noticed two things:
- the CPU rise is gone
- it needs only half the CPU. I put 20 [bob~] objects in a switched subpatch and measured the CPU load. The DLL which comes with the Windows binaries needs 15%, while my own DLL needs only 7%! That's quite a deal...
Christof
PS: I attached the DLL in case you wanna try it yourself.
> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. September 2016 um 22:58 Uhr > Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at > An: pd-list@iem.at, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu > Betreff: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue? > > Hi Miller, > > feeding audio into [bob~] and then going to zero will increase the CPU load by ca. 6%. Clearing the filter or adding a tiny amount of noise brings the CPU load back to its usual level immediately, so I guess it's a problem with denormals. > My Pd load meter won't really show the increase, but it's clearly visibly on Process Explorer. > > See my attached patch. Tried with Pd 0.47.1, Lenovo Thinkpad L440, Windows 7. > > Christof_______________________________________________ > 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