Right, so the point of [pd~] is that the OS can now throw whatever is going on in the subprocess onto another core. The idea from what I've heard for Gem is that you can leave the DSP off in the [pd~] instance, run Gem from there (on another core, possibly). Then if together they would have maxed out one core they could split the work among two and proceed in time.
But if the problem is that Gem has to wait for something to happen elsewhere before it can proceed, it won't help. Kind of in the same way that running an infinite [until] loop on the subprocess will halt the main process, too.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list < pd-list@lists.iem.at> wrote:
But [cpu_hungry_hippo~] needs input from [pd~] in order to compute its output. So [pd~] must send output before [cpu_hungry_hippo~] can execute its perform routine.
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:17 PM, Lucas Cordiviola < lucarda27@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isn`t
[pd~] <-- some dsp stuff going on in here
To take advantage of multi-core CPUs?
Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:37:26 +0000 To: brbrofsvl@gmail.com; reduzent@gmail.com CC: pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] DSP and Gem in the same instance of Pd From: pd-list@lists.iem.at
I'm not sure I understand [pd~]. Consider:
[foo~] | [pd~] <-- some dsp stuff going on in here | [cpu_hungy_hippo~]
How does [pd~] help me in this case, as opposed to just putting the "dsp stuff" directly in the patch?
And in general, how is the super-process able to anything other than block when waiting for output from [pd~]?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 5:17 PM, Matt Barber brbrofsvl@gmail.com wrote:
One other thing that's helped in an emergency is increasing Pd's audio buffer in the preferences.
One thing I've heard of but never tried is running Gem from a slave instance in [pd~]. I don't know enough about it to know whether this could work or why; it might just be a rain dance.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 11:35 +0200, cyrille henry wrote:
Le 31/03/2016 11:19, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
BTW: Why does the graphics rendering|clock have precedence over the audio rendering (at least, it seems to be like that in Pure Data/Gem)?
I
guess most softwares do it the other way around, since clicks are much more noticeable than a frame being a few milliseconds late.
Gem have no precedence over audio : they both have the same priority. when having priorities on audio, the openGL rendering did not have fixed frame rate, and it's not possible any-more to have smooth hight speed movement.
So, i like the way it is, even if it cause implementation problem.
Oh, now since I understand, I like the way it is, too ;-)
one possible explanation of your problem is that you are rendering a 60 fps, and that openGL is sync on the 60fps screen. You can have jitter between the 2 different 60fps clock. If Gem is waiting for the screen, then everything (including audio) is on pause.
That is exactly what I was doing.
if this is the cause of your problem, then reduce Gem fps to 59, or remove openGL syncro (sync to vblank).
This is exactly what helped (reducing fps to 59). Thanks for your sharp thinking.
Roman
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list