2010/4/5 Tim Blechmann tim@klingt.org
has anyone been using pd~ successfully ? I am trying it out, but i get very poor results. It seems like a patch loaded with pd~ is a lot heavier than the same loaded as a regular abstraction (DIO errors, see also my message "pd~ and DIO errors"). I assumed it would run on another processor core...but does it? Is there a way to check this?
it is the job of the scheduler of the operating system to assign the processes to different cores. both parent and child process should probably be pinned to different physical cores. not sure, whether miller took that into account, though ...
What I have tried in the past is run one pd for audio and another one for GEM stuff, which worked rather well. I wonder if it would make sense to do the same with 2 pd instances doing audio, and exchange audio between them. Maybe I could try that with Jack. But I think the latency will be doubled, because the buffers of both pd's would add up...? gr, Tim
tim
-- tim@klingt.org http://tim.klingt.org
Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates, apache inside, stable.
it is the job of the scheduler of the operating system to assign the processes to different cores. both parent and child process should probably be pinned to different physical cores. not sure, whether miller took that into account, though ...
What I have tried in the past is run one pd for audio and another one for GEM stuff, which worked rather well. I wonder if it would make sense to do the same with 2 pd instances doing audio, and exchange audio between them. Maybe I could try that with Jack.
it depends on the scheduling algorithm implemented in jack2 ... depending on the structure of the jack graph, jack2 may try to execute both processes on the sequentially ...
But I think the latency will be doubled, because the buffers of both pd's would add up...?
from my understanding, pd~ uses a pipelining approach, so you will loose one sample block when crossing pd~ boundaries ...
tim
-
Tim Blechmann -
tim vets