My game engine tries to allocate large texture arrays to be able to batch majority (if not all) of its draw together. This array may become large enough that fails to allocate, at which point I'd (continually) split the texture array in halves.
Is it bad design to push the boundaries until receiving a glGetError:Out of memory and scale back from there?
Is my application a jerk because it's allocating huge chunks of VRAM, which may require swapping into GTT memory? As in, is it less ideal for the graphics driver to be manipulating a few large texture arrays rather than many individual textures when dealing with other OS operations?
It is hard to evaluate how well drivers handle large texture arrays. Behaviour of different drivers may vary a lot.
While using texture array can improve performance by reducing the number of draw calls, that should not be the main goal. Reduction of draw calls is somewhat important on mobile platforms, and even there, several dozens of them is not a problem. I'm not sure about your concerns and what exactly you try to optimise, but I would recommend using profiling tools from GPU vendor before doing any optimisation.
Is it bad design to push the boundaries until receiving a glGetError:Out of memory and scale back from there?
This is what typically done when data is dynamically loaded to the GPU. Once the error is received, old data should be unloaded to load a new one.
Is my application a jerk because it's allocating huge chunks of VRAM, which may require swapping into GTT memory?
There is no way to check if data was swapped to GTT or not (if driver supports GTT at all). The driver handles it on its own, and there is no access to that from OpenGL API. You may need to use profiling tools like Nsight, if you are using a GPU from NVidia.
However, if you are planning to have one giant textures array, it must fit into VRAM as a whole, it can not be partially in VRAM and in GTT. I would not recommend relying on GTT at all.
It must fit into VRAM, because when you bind it, the driver can not know beforehand which layers will be used and which won't since selection happens in the shader.
Despite the fact that textures array and 3dtexture are conceptually different, at hardware level they work very similarly, the difference is that the first one uses filtering in two dimensions and the second one - in three dimensions.
I was playing with large 3d textures for a while. I did experiments with GeForce 1070 (it has 6GB), and it handles textures ~1GB very good. The largest texture I managed to load was around 3GB (2048x2048x7**), but often it throws an error. Despite the fact that it should have a large amount of free VRAM that would fit the texture, it may fail to allocate such big chunk due to various reasons. So I would not recommend allocating textures that are comparable to the total size of VRAM unless it is absolutely necessary.
Related
I can use glTexImage2D or glBufferData to send some data to the gpu memory. Let's assume that I request driver to send more data to the gpu but the gpu memory is already full. I probably get GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY. What might happen with a rendering thread ? What are possible scenarios ? Is it possible that a rendering thread will be terminated ?
It depends on the actual OpenGL implementation. But the most likely scenario is, that you'll just encounter a serious performance drop, but things will just keep working.
OpenGL uses an abstract memory model, for which actual implementation threat the GPU's own memory as a cache. In fact for most OpenGL implementation when you load texture data it doesn't even go directly to the GPU at first. Only when it's actually required for rendering it gets loaded into the GPU RAM. If there are more textures in use than fit into GPU RAM, textures are swapped in and out from GPU RAM as needed to complete the rendering.
Older GPU generations required for a texture to completely fit into their RAM. The GPUs that came out after 2012 actually can access texture subsets from host memory as required thereby lifting that limit. In fact you're sooner running into maximum texture dimension limits, rather than memory limits (BT;DT).
Of course other, less well developed OpenGL implementations may bail out with an out of memory error. But at least for AMD and NVidia that's not an issue.
I am new in OpenGL and I want somebody to explain me how the program uses GPU.
I have an array of triangles(class that contains 3 points). Here is the code that draw them( I know these functions are depricated).
glBegin(GL_LINES);
for(int i=0; i<trsize; ++i){
glVertex3d((GLdouble)trarr[i].p1().x(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p1().y(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p1().z());
glVertex3d((GLdouble)trarr[i].p2().x(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p2().y(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p2().z());
glVertex3d((GLdouble)trarr[i].p3().x(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p3().y(), (GLdouble)trarr[i].p3().z());
}
glEnd();
And i also use depricated functions for rotating, transforming, etc.
When the size of array is bigger than 50k, the program works very slow.
I tried to use only Intel HD or only NVidia gtx860M (the default NVidia Program allows to choose GPU) but they both works very slow. Maybe Intel HD works even a bit faster.
So, why there is no difference between these two GPUs?
And will the program work faster with using shaders?
The probable bottleneck is looping over the vertices, accessing the array and pulling out the vertex data 50000 times per render then sending the data to the GPU for rendering.
Using a VBO would indeed be faster and compresses the cost of extracting the data and sending it to the GPU to once on initialization.
Even using a user memory buffer would speed it up because you won't be calling 50k functions but the driver can just do a memcopy of the relevant data.
When the size of array is bigger than 50k, the program works very slow.
The major bottleneck when drawing in intermediate mode is, that all your vertices have to be transferred in every frame from your programs memory to the GPU memory. The bus between GPU and CPU is limited in the amout of data it can transfer, so the best guess is, that 50k triangles are simply more than the bus can transport. Another problem is, that the driver has to process all the commands you send him on the CPU, which can also be a big overhead.
So, why there is no difference between these two GPUs?
There is (in general) a huge performance difference between the Intel HD card and a NVIDIA card, but the bus between them might be the same.
And will the program work faster with using shaders?
It will not benefit directly from the user of shaders, but definitely from storing the vertices once on the gpu memory (see VBO/VAO). The second improvement is, that you can render the whole VBO using only one draw call, which decreases the amount of instructions the cpu has to handle.
Seeing the same performance with two GPUs that have substantially different performance potential certainly suggests that your code is CPU limited. But I very much question some of the theories about the performance bottleneck in the other answers/comments.
Some simple calculations suggest that memory bandwidth should not come into play at all. With 50,000 triangles, with 3 vertices each, and 24 bytes per vertex, you're looking at 3,600,000 bytes of vertex data per frame. Say you're targeting 60 frames/second, this is a little over 200 MBytes/second. That's less than 1% of the memory bandwidth of a modern PC.
The most practical implementation of immediate mode on a modern GPU is for drivers to collect all the data into buffers, and then submit it all at once when a buffer fills up. So there's no need for a lot of kernel calls, and the data for each vertex is certainly not sent to the GPU separately.
Driver overhead is most likely the main culprit. With 50,000 triangles, and 3 API calls per triangle, this is 150,000 API calls per frame, or 9 million API calls/second if you're targeting 60 frames/second. That's a lot! For each of these calls, you'll have:
Looping and array accesses in your own code.
The actual function call.
Argument passing.
State management and logic in the driver code.
etc.
One important aspect that makes this much worse than it needs to be: You're using double values for your coordinates. That doubles the amount of data that needs to be passed around compared to using float values. And since the OpenGL vertex pipeline operates in single precision (*), the driver will have to convert all the values to float.
I suspect that you could get a significant performance improvement even with using the deprecated immediate mode calls if you started using float for all your coordinates (both your own storage, and for passing them to OpenGL). You could also use the version of the glVertex*() call that takes a single argument with a pointer to the vector, instead of 3 separate arguments. This would be glVertex3fv() for float vectors.
Making the move to VBOs is of course the real solution. It will reduce the number of API calls by orders of magnitude, and avoid any data copying as long as the vertex data does not change over time.
(*) OpenGL 4.1 adds support for double vertex attributes, but they require the use of specific API functions, and only make sense if single precision floats really are not precise enough.
I'm making a 2D game with OpenGL. Something I'm concerned with is texture memory consumption. 2D games use a few orders of magnitude more texture memory than 3D games, most of that coming from animation frames and backgrounds.
Obviously there's a limit to how much texture memory a program can allocate, but what determines that limit? Does the limit come from available general memory to the program, or is it limited by how much video memory is available on the GPU? Can it use swap space at all? What happens when video memory is exhausted?
OpenGL's memory model is very abstract. Up to version including 2.1 there were two kinds of memory fast "server" memory and slow "client" memory. But there are no limits that could be queried in any way. When a OpenGL implementation runs out of "server" (=GPU) memory it may start swapping or just report "out of memory" errors.
OpenGL-3 did away (mostly, OpenGL-4 finished that job) with the two different kinds of memory. There's just "memory" and the limits are quite arbitrary and depend on the OpenGL implementation (= GPU + driver) the program is running on. All OpenGL implementations are perfectly capable of swapping out textures not used in a while. So the only situation where you would run into a out of memory situation would be the attempt to create a very large texture. The more recent GPUs are in fact capable of swapping in and out parts of textures on a as-needed base. Things will get slow, but keep working.
Obviously there's a limit to how much texture memory a program can allocate, but what determines that limit?
The details of the OpenGL implementation of the system and depending on that the amount of memory installed in that system.
I'm asking this question because I don't want to spend time writing some code that duplicates functionalities of the OpenGL drivers.
Can the OpenGL driver/server hold more data than the video card? Say, I have enough video RAM to hold 10 textures. Can I ask OpenGL to allocate 15 textures without getting an GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY error?
If I can rely on the driver to cleverly send the textures/buffers/objects from the 'normal' RAM to the video RAM when needed then I don't really need to Gen/Delete these objects myself. I become limited by the 'normal' RAM which is often plentiful when compared to the video RAM.
The approach "memory is abundant so I don't need to delete" is bad, and the approach "memory is abundant, so I'll never get out of memory errors" is flawed.
OpenGL memory management is obscure, both for technical reasons (see t.niese's comment above) and for ideological reasons ("you don't need to know, you don't want to know"). Though there exist vendor extensions (such as ATI_meminfo) that let you query some non-authorative numbers (non-authorative insofar as they could change the next millisecond, and they do not take effects like fragmentation into account).
Generally, for the most part, your assumption that you can use more memory than there is GPU memory is correct.
However, you are not usually not able to use all available memory. More likely, there is a limit well below "all available RAM" due to constraints on what memory regions (and how large regions) the driver can allocate, lock, and DMA to/from. And even though you can normally use more memory than will fit on the GPU (even if you used it exclusively), this does not mean careless allocations can't and won't eventually fail.
Usually, but not necessarily, you consume as much system memory as GPU memory, too (without knowing, the driver does that secretly). Since the driver swaps resources in and out as needed, it needs to maintain a copy. Sometimes, it is necessary to keep 2 or 3 copies (e.g. when streaming or for ARB_copy_buffer operations). Sometimes, mapping a buffer object is yet another copy in a specially allocated block, and sometimes you're allowed to write straight into the driver's memory.
On the other hand, PCIe 2.0 (and PCIe 3.0 even more so) is fast enough to stream vertices from main memory, so you do not even strictly need GPU memory (other than a small buffer). Some drivers will stream dynamic geometry right away from system memory.
Some GPUs do not even have separate system and GPU memory (Intel Sandy Bridge or AMD Fusion).
Also, you should note that deleting objects does not necessarily delete them (at least not immediately). Usually, with very few exceptions, deleting an OpenGL object is merely a tentative delete which prevents you from further referencing the object. The driver will keep the object valid for as long as it needs to.
On the other hand, you really should delete what you do not need any more, and you should delete early. For example, you should delete a shader immediately after attaching it to the program object. This ensures that you do not leak resources, and it is guaranteed to work. Deleting and re-specifying the in-use vertex or pixel buffer when streaming (by calling glBufferData(... NULL); is a well-known idiom. This only affects your view of the object, and it allows the driver to continue using the old object in parallel for as long as it needs to.
Some additional information to my comment that did not fit in there.
There are different reasons why this is not part of OpenGL.
It isn't an easy task for the system/driver to guess which resources are and will be required. The driver for sure could create an internal heuristic if resource will be required often or rarely (like CPU does for if statements and doing pre executing code certain code parts on that guess). But the GPU will not know (without knowing the application code) what resource will be required next. It even has no knowledge where the geometry is places in the scene (because you do this with you model and view martix you pass to your shader yourself)
If you e.g. have a game where you can walk through a scene, you normally won't render the parts that are out of the view. So the GPU could think that these resources are not required anymore, but if you turn around then all this textures and geometry is required again and needs to be moved from system memory to gpu memory, which could result in really bad performance. But the Game Engine itself has, because of the use of octrees (or similar techniques) and the possible paths that can be walked, an in deep knowledge about the scene and which resource could be removed from the GPU and which one could be move to the GPU while playing and where it would be necessary to display a loading screen.
If you look at the evolution of OpenGL and which features become deprecated you will see that they go to the direction to remove everything except the really required features that can be done best by the graphic card, driver and system. Everything else is up to the user to implement on it's own to get the best performance. (you e.g. create your projection matrix yourself to pass it to the shader, so OpenGl even does not know where the object is placed in the scene).
Here's my TL;DR answer, I recommend reading Daemon's and t.niese's answers as well:
Can the OpenGL driver/server hold more data than the video card?
Yes
Say, I have enough video RAM to hold 10 textures. Can I ask OpenGL to allocate 15 textures without getting an GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY error?
Yes. Depending on the driver / GPU combination it might even be possible to allocate a single texture that exceeds the GPU's memory, and actually use it for rendering. At my current occupation I exploit that fact to extract slices of arbitrary orientation and geometry from large volumetric datasets, using shaders to apply filters on the voxel data in situ. Works well, but doesn't work for interactive frame rates.
I'm building an OpenGL app with many small textures. I estimate that I will have a few hundred
textures on the screen at any given moment.
Can anyone recommend best practices for storing all these textures in memory so as to avoid potential performance issues?
I'm also interested in understanding how OpenGL manages textures. Will OpenGL try to store them into GPU memory? If so, how much GPU memory can I count on? If not, how often does OpenGL pass the textures from application memory to the GPU, and should I be worried about latency when this happens?
I'm working with OpenGL 3.3. I intend to use only modern features, i.e. no immediate mode stuff.
If you have a large number of small textures, you would be best off combining them into a single large texture with each of the small textures occupying known sub-regions (a technique sometimes called a "texture atlas"). Switching which texture is bound can be expensive, in that it will limit how much of your drawing you can batch together. By combining into one you can minimize the number of times you have to rebind. Alternatively, if your textures are very similarly sized, you might look into using an array texture (introduction here).
OpenGL does try to store your textures in GPU memory insofar as possible, but I do not believe that it is guaranteed to actually reside on the graphics card.
The amount of GPU memory you have available will be dependent on the hardware you run on and the other demands on the system at the time you run. What exactly "GPU memory" means will vary across machines, it can be discrete and used only be the GPU, shared with main memory, or some combination of the two.
Assuming your application is not constantly modifying the textures you should not need to be particularly concerned about latency issues. You will provide OpenGL with the textures once and from that point forward it will manage their location in memory. Assuming you don't need more texture data than can easily fit in GPU memory every frame, it shouldn't be cause for concern. If you do need to use a large amount of texture data, try to ensure that you batch all use of a certain texture together to minimize the number of round trips the data has to make. You can also look into the built-in texture compression facilities, supplying something like GL_COMPRESSED_RGBA to your call to glTexImage2D, see the man page for more details.
Of course, as always, your best bet will be to test these things yourself in a situation close to your expected use case. OpenGL provides a good number of guarantees, but much will vary depending on the particular implementation.