

Learn to program or die trying 


Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ] 

Author 
Message 
cyboryxmen

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 1:25 pm 

Joined: November 14th, 2014, 2:03 am Posts: 71

Anyone that has dabbled with very simple physics will have seen one of these before. Code: void Update ( const float delta_time ) { if ( alive_ ) { position_ += speed_ * delta_time; } }
However, I have come to the realisation that this may be better. Code: void Update ( const float delta_time ) { position_ += speed_ * delta_time; }
If the entity is "dead", simply set its speed to zero. Now the reason why this may be the case is that if you read up on modern cpu architecture, you will realise that cpus are already getting better and better at making complex calculations in a matter of nanoseconds while at the same time, getting worse at branching. Your if statements, switch statements and virtual function calls are becoming more expensive than just simply doing x + y. Their actual costs hasn't actually increased at all really but the cpu has a lot of optimisations built into it that relies on it knowing ahead of time which code to run. So even though branching itself hasn't become more expensive, it prevents you from using so many of the optimisations the cpu uses to increase efficiency. The advantage of the second example I gave(with the branching code) is that you can skip the unnecessary calculations since the entity is dead. In my tests, if you have a whole lot of entities and 90% of them are dead, the branching code is actually much faster. At the same time however, that's not representative to real world scenarios and in my games personally, the number of dead entities in my buffer is never lower than 50%. For me, doing a check on each and every entity to see if they're dead is usually not as fast as just doing the calculations for all of them. Don't get me wrong: You can't make a real program that has no branching in it. You still need your if statements, switch statements and virtual function calls if you wish to do the most basic of user input. Just try and watch out for unnecessary ones where just doing the calculations is faster than doing a check with it. I made a benchmark to help prove my point. Try running it on your system and see if I'm right or just spouting nonsense. Code: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <cstdint> #include <vector> #include <chrono> #include <random> #include <memory> #include <algorithm> #include <limits> #include <fstream> #include <functional> #include <future> #include <type_traits> #include <array> #include <unordered_map>
class Vector3 { using Float = float;
Float x_ { }; Float y_ { }; Float z_ { };
public: Vector3 ( ) = default;
constexpr explicit Vector3 ( const Float x, const Float y, const Float z ) noexcept : x_ { x }, y_ { y }, z_ { z } { }
Vector3& operator+=( const Vector3 vector ) noexcept { x_ += vector.x_; y_ += vector.y_; z_ += vector.z_; return *this; } constexpr Vector3 operator+( const Vector3 vector ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { x_ + vector.x_, y_ + vector.y_, z_ + vector.z_ }; }
Vector3& operator=( const Vector3 vector ) noexcept { x_ = vector.x_; y_ = vector.y_; z_ = vector.z_; return *this; } constexpr Vector3 operator( const Vector3 vector ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { x_  vector.x_, y_  vector.y_, z_  vector.z_ }; }
constexpr Vector3 operator( ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { x_, y_, z_ }; }
Vector3& operator*=( const Float scalar ) noexcept { x_ *= scalar; y_ *= scalar; z_ *= scalar; return *this; } constexpr Vector3 operator*( const Float scalar ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { x_ * scalar, y_ * scalar, z_ * scalar }; }
Vector3& operator/=( const Float scalar ) noexcept { x_ /= scalar; y_ /= scalar; z_ /= scalar; return *this; } constexpr Vector3 operator/( const Float scalar ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { x_ / scalar, y_ / scalar, z_ / scalar }; }
Float Length ( ) const noexcept { return std::sqrt ( LengthSquared ( ) ); } Float LengthSquared ( ) const noexcept { return x_ * x_ + y_ * y_ + z_ * z_; } Vector3 Normalized ( ) const noexcept { const Float length = Length ( );
return Vector3 { x_ / length, y_ / length, z_ / length }; }
constexpr Float Dot ( const Vector3 vector ) const noexcept { return x_ * vector.x_ + y_ * vector.y_ + z_ * vector.z_; } constexpr Vector3 Cross ( const Vector3 vector ) const noexcept { return Vector3 { y_ * vector.z_  z_ * vector.y_, z_ * vector.x_  x_ * vector.z_, x_ * vector.y_  y_ * vector.x_ }; }
constexpr Float X ( ) const noexcept { return x_; } constexpr Float Y ( ) const noexcept { return y_; } constexpr Float Z ( ) const noexcept { return z_; } };
class EntityWithoutBranch { public: EntityWithoutBranch ( const bool alive, const Vector3 position, const Vector3 speed ) : position_ { position } { if ( alive ) { speed_ = speed; } }
void Update ( const float delta_time ) { position_ += speed_ * delta_time; }
private: Vector3 position_; Vector3 speed_; };
class EntityWithBranch { public: EntityWithBranch ( const bool alive, const Vector3 position, const Vector3 speed ) : alive_ { alive }, position_ { position }, speed_ { speed } {
}
void Update ( const float delta_time ) { if ( alive_ ) { position_ += speed_ * delta_time; } }
private: bool alive_; Vector3 position_; Vector3 speed_; };
using Entity = EntityWithBranch;
int main ( ) { std::mt19937 engine; std::uniform_int_distribution<int> rand_alive ( 0, 1 ); std::uniform_real_distribution<float> rand_pos( 5.0f, 5.0f );
constexpr std::size_t num_tests = 4000; constexpr std::size_t num_entities = 100000; constexpr std::size_t expected_active_entities = 50000; std::size_t active_entities = 0;
std::vector<Entity> entities;
for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < num_entities; ++i ) { bool alive = false; if ( active_entities < expected_active_entities && rand_alive ( engine ) > 0 ) { alive = true; ++active_entities; } entities.emplace_back ( alive, Vector3 { rand_pos ( engine ), rand_pos ( engine ), rand_pos ( engine ) }, Vector3 { rand_pos ( engine ), rand_pos ( engine ), rand_pos ( engine ) } ); }
// It's supposed to be called mean but I don't give a fuck! unsigned long long lowest_time_taken = std::numeric_limits<unsigned long long>::max ( ); unsigned long long highest_time_taken = std::numeric_limits<unsigned long long>::min ( ); long double average = 0.0; std::vector<unsigned long long> data_points; data_points.resize ( num_tests );
for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < num_tests; ++i ) { const auto start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now ( ); for ( auto& entity : entities ) { entity.Update ( 0.5f ); } const auto end = std::chrono::steady_clock::now ( ); const auto duration = end  start; const auto time_taken = std::chrono::duration_cast< std::chrono::nanoseconds >( duration ).count ( );
data_points [ i ] = time_taken; }
std::sort ( data_points.begin ( ), data_points.end ( ) );
constexpr std::size_t median_index = num_tests % 2 == 0 ? num_tests / 2 : num_tests / 2 + 1; const auto median = data_points [ median_index ];
long double standard_deviation = 0.0l; for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < num_tests; ++i ) { const auto time_taken = data_points [ i ]; average += time_taken; if ( time_taken < lowest_time_taken ) { lowest_time_taken = time_taken; } if ( time_taken > highest_time_taken ) { highest_time_taken = time_taken; } const long double distance_to_average = static_cast<long double>( time_taken )  average; standard_deviation += distance_to_average * distance_to_average; } average = average / num_tests; standard_deviation = std::sqrt ( standard_deviation / num_tests );
std::cout << "Num entities: " << num_entities << std::endl; std::cout << "Active entities: " << active_entities << std::endl; std::cout << "Num tests: " << num_tests << std::endl; std::cout << "Lowest time taken: " << lowest_time_taken << std::endl; std::cout << "Highest time taken: " << highest_time_taken << std::endl; std::cout << "Average: " << average << std::endl; std::cout << "Median: " << median << std::endl; std::cout << "Standard deviation: " << standard_deviation << std::endl;
system ( "pause" ); return 0; }
_________________ Zekilk





albinopapa

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 6:26 pm 

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:23 am Posts: 2711 Location: Oklahoma, United States

Well, ran the tests. Times are of course in nanoseconds. Ran over 100,000 entites
EntityWithoutBranching Average: 680,951.83225000
EntityWithoutBranching (modified) Average: 713,395.49150000
EntitiesWithBranching Average: 1,110,782.99575000
EntitiesWithBranching (modified) Average: 1,750,109.87600000
Polymorphic Average: 2,082,753.00725000
Polymorphic (modified) Average: 3,262,963.41275000
The modified versions set up the entities vector with 50,000 alive and dead, then shuffles the order. This is to ensure that the number of alive and dead counts are constant. All the tests I ran the alive/dead counts were 50,000. Just wanted to make it explicit from run to run.
The polymorphic classes were Living which did calculate the new position, and Dead which was an empty Update function.
With branching is ~2 times slower than without and ~2 times faster than using polymorphism, at least in these tests.
Good times as always cybor, thanks for sharing.
[DISCLAIMER TO NEWCOMERS] While this has some merrit, in the larger scheme of things, this may not show true realworld results. Usually, by the time you factor in all the rest of your code ( audio, graphics, physics, etc...) using if blocks and switch statements and the like, won't affect performance. This is a test where there are 3 add and 3 multiply operations every loop iteration which is really fast and very few instructions and nothing else going on during the timed portion. Also, this test doesn't take into account that you'd still need to set speed_ to 0.f with an if check before the calculations can be done, so I really don't know if this would be a valid test either.
_________________ If you think paging some data from disk into RAM is slow, try paging it into a simian cerebrum over a pair of optical nerves.  gameprogrammingpatterns.com





cyboryxmen

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 6:34 pm 

Joined: November 14th, 2014, 2:03 am Posts: 71

Thanks. I learnt to benchmark a lot better since the last time. For one thing, the random number engine is not seeded so it will produce the same result every time. Not to mention I learnt to do better statistics on these benchmarks and included all the things you need to have proper statistics. Ranges, mean, median, standard deviation; the works.
I have to say though, the main reason why the polymorphic entities are slower is going to come from the fact that you are not storing them contiguously but with individual new(s). A guy from Discord asked me why I couldn't just delete the objects from the buffer. He was using std::unique_ptrs so he didn't understand the pain behind managing a contiguous array of objects(especially when trying to get their addresses).
_________________ Zekilk





_Java

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 10:13 pm 

Joined: February 16th, 2017, 12:45 am Posts: 1

Pretty interesting how some things like this defy our own logic. But it made sense after thinking about it for a minute, and its always fun to consider this kinds of stuff. Thanks for sharing





albinopapa

Posted: June 27th, 2017, 11:07 pm 

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:23 am Posts: 2711 Location: Oklahoma, United States

Yeah, I didn't think about cache locality when I was wanting to throw in polymorphism. I too used a vector of unique_ptrs. I didn't catch that the RNG wasn't seeded, that makes sense then. The standard deviations are coming out to be way larger than the min/max values though, not sure it should be like that, though I don't know enough about statistics to "put in my $0.02".
_________________ If you think paging some data from disk into RAM is slow, try paging it into a simian cerebrum over a pair of optical nerves.  gameprogrammingpatterns.com





albinopapa

Posted: June 28th, 2017, 12:07 am 

Joined: February 28th, 2013, 3:23 am Posts: 2711 Location: Oklahoma, United States

So adding a few more lines of code that might also be in an Update function of a game reduces the gap between the two cases ( branching and nonbranching ). Code: // code addition void Update( const float delta_time, const Vector3 &OtherPos ) { const auto speed = speed_.Length(); speed_ = ( position_  OtherPos ).Normalized() * speed; position_ += speed_ * delta_time; }
EntityWithBranch  Num entities: 100,000 Active entities: 50,000 Num tests: 4,000 Lowest time taken: 2,324,614 Highest time taken: 6,853,044 Average: 2,560,914.06250000 Median: 2,552,259 Standard deviation: 91,528,832.14215240 Code: // code addition void Update( const float delta_time, const Vector3 &OtherPos ) { if( alive_ ) { const auto speed = speed_.Length(); speed_ = ( position_  OtherPos ).Normalized() * speed;
position_ += speed_ * delta_time; } }
EntityWithoutBranch  Num entities: 100,000 Active entities: 50,000 Num tests: 4,000 Lowest time taken: 2,633,843 Highest time taken: 4,656,860 Average: 2,932,901.68450000 Median: 2,926,229 Standard deviation: 104,398,618.52052431
_________________ If you think paging some data from disk into RAM is slow, try paging it into a simian cerebrum over a pair of optical nerves.  gameprogrammingpatterns.com





chili

Posted: July 1st, 2017, 5:21 am 

Site Admin 

Joined: December 31st, 2011, 4:53 pm Posts: 3402 Location: Japan

Nice post.
The results of branching code vs nonbranching depend greatly on the type of data being processed. Take for example a routine for drawing a sprite with a chroma key. The two alternatives are branch on chroma test, skipping process on pass, or use chroma test result as a mask and process each pixel. In this case we generally see that the branching code will perform faster. Reason is because the pattern of chroma pixels and nonchroma is generally not random, and there are often long runs of both, so the branch predictor handles them well and enables the cpu to do less work. The same is found with hatched patterns (alternating chroma/nonchroma). With a random distribution of chroma/nonchroma, a branchless solution will be greatly superior though, but this is not a common reallife scenario.
The moral of this story is that you really should understand your data well before making such design decisions.
_________________ Chili





cyboryxmen

Posted: July 1st, 2017, 6:05 am 

Joined: November 14th, 2014, 2:03 am Posts: 71

Yeah I didn't mention the cpu's branch predictor since I have no information on the performance of that component. I suppose that would make sense if your inputs are going to be really predictable, the cpu would easily predict what each branch is going to be and apply the appropriate optimisations.
_________________ Zekilk







Page 1 of 1

[ 8 posts ] 



You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum


