[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sc-users] Re: will there ever be real multiprocessor support?



I agree... actually, if we can solve Wouter's issue, then figure out how to tell scsynths to share memory, I think we could be a long ways to where we need to go to get this to work with the current architecture.

I often run two servers on a two core system without a problem, and base my decisions on where to put synths on:

- which server has the memory I need (large buffers recording input)
- does anything need to feed into anything else.

And hopefully there aren't conflicts :) . But it would be nice if there was something that could just share resources - buffers and busses (which, when it comes down to it, is just memory again!)

Josh

On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:

Maybe a good first step would be to address the issues with multiple servers running that Wouter raised. This would provide a viable user- specified approach which would be helpful in many cases.

S.

On 5 Mar 2009, at 18:59, James Harkins wrote:

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Tim Blechmann <tim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the main problem when thinking about a multithreaded audio signal
processing is the implicit dependency tracking.

For the reason Josh stated, automatic dependency recognition is likely
to be impossible.

I had thought over lunch... what if we had an alternate "parallel
group" node type (more precisely, parallelizable group). The rule is
that any Synths put into this group must be completely independent of
each other, so they could be split out onto separate threads for the
OS to distribute among cores.

A typical polyphonic synth with effect might look like this:

(parallelizable group: All source synths here, which compute independently)
|
|
V
Effect synth

All the parallel activity in the parallelizable group would have to
complete before giving control to the effect synth.

Not to say that this would be easy to implement, but it's an
architecture in keeping with what we already have in scsynth and it
would give the user a way to say that a certain set of synth nodes is
okay to parallelize while others are not.

hjh


--
James Harkins /// dewdrop world
jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dewdrop-world.net

"Come said the Muse,
Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
Sing me the universal."  -- Whitman

_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/

******************************************
/* Joshua D. Parmenter
http://www.realizedsound.net/josh/

“Every composer – at all times and in all cases – gives his own interpretation of how modern society is structured: whether actively or passively, consciously or unconsciously, he makes choices in this regard. He may be conservative or he may subject himself to continual renewal; or he may strive for a revolutionary, historical or social palingenesis." - Luigi Nono
*/


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/