Re: [Csnd-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Csnd-dev] Parallel Csound performance
Victor Lazzarini <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:22:35 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.csound.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
No, I don't think we ever disabled it. There were some questions about re-enabling some analysis to the parser (which existed in parser 2) but beyond that we never touched it. I continued to build with it but had not been actively testing the code. I am surprised at how well it run without any changes. best Prof. Victor Lazzarini Maynooth University Ireland > On 29 Oct 2025, at 22:14, Steven Yi <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Warning* > > This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. > > This is odd, as I thought cspar was disabled in Csound? > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 6:08 PM Victor Lazzarini >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’m back investigating parallel Csound performance and it was interesting to see that >> Csound 7 is working well with it, in fact far better than 6.18. >> >> Running 1000 oscillator instrs for 60 secs I got these stats >> >> ksmps = 100 >> ----------- >> single thread: 3.9s >> 8 threads: 3.9s >> >> ksmps = 150 >> ---------- >> single thread: 3.5s >> 8 threads: 2.7s >> >> ksmps = 300 >> ---------- >> single thread: 3.2s >> 8 threads: 1.6s >> >> ksmps = 500 >> ---------- >> single thread: 3.2s >> 8 threads: 1.2s >> >> ksmps = 1000 >> ---------- >> single thread: 3.3s >> 8 threads: 0.8 >> >> In comparison with 6.18 the last test ran at 11secs for 8 threads. In fact, 6.18 was always slower in parallel >> performance. Something was very broken there. Single-threaded performance is on a par with Csound 7. >> >> I can only think the new parser is working better with the parallel dispatch, or that something else was wrong >> in the 6.x and got fixed in 7. Anyway, I am pleased with these results. In general, ksmps=100 seems to be the break even >> point, below that multi-threaded performance is always losing. Also ksmps=1000 is more or less the highest gain, >> with diminishing returns after that. In my computer, 8 threads seem to be the optimal. >> >> best >> ======================== >> Prof. Victor Lazzarini >> Maynooth University >> Ireland >> >> >> >> >> >>