Are there any benefits of having separate vertex buffers for static and dynamic objects in a DirectX 11 application? My approach is to have the vertices of all objects in a scene stored in the same vertex buffer.
However, I will only have to re-map a small number of objects (1 to 5) of the whole collection (up to 200 objects). The majority of objects are static and will not be transformed in any way. What is the best approach for doing this?
Mapping a big vertex buffer with discard forces the driver to allocate new memory every frame. Up to ~4 frames can be in flight, so there can be 4 copies of that buffer. This can lead to memory overcommitment and stuttering. For example, ATI advises to discard vertex buffers up to 4 mb max (GCN Performance Tweets). Besides, every time you will have to needlessly copy static data to a new vertex buffer.
Mapping with no overwrite should work better. It would require to manually manage the memory, so you won't overwrite the data which is in flight. I'm not sure about the performance implications, but for sure this isn't a recommended path.
Best approach would be to simplify driver's work by providing as many hints as possible. Create static vertex buffers with immutable flag, long lived with default flag and dynamic with dynamic flag. See vendor guides like GCN Performance Tweets or Don’t Throw it all Away: Efficient Buffer Management for additional details.
Related
I'm working on a program that loads new data of a model to the graphics card using OpenGL, it then switches to rendering that one, and then removes the old data so as to create more space for other uses.
From my understanding I shouldn't be creating/releasing buffers on the fly as it can lead to memory thrashing.
Is it bad to call glBufferData frequently to add new data to the graphics card? Does this count as creating/releasing buffers?
If you call glBufferData with the same size and usage parameters as it was called previously, then this is effectively invalidating or "orphaning" the buffer. To do anything else, to change the size or usage, is to effectively create a new buffer.
If you aren't streaming data (uploading new data every frame or so), invalidation is not especially useful. If you're no longer using the buffer, and you haven't used it in a while, just leave it there if you're going to need buffer storage again.
And if your models use different sizes, preallocate a large buffer object and have different models use different regions from that one allocation.
I have a need to stream a texture (essentially a camera feed).
With object streaming, the following scenarios seem to be arise:
Is the new object's data store larger, smaller or same size as the old one?
Subset of or whole texture being updated?
Are we streaming a buffer object or texture object (any difference?)
Here are the following approaches I have come across:
Allocate object data store (either BufferData for buffers or TexImage2D for textures) and then each frame, update subset of data with BufferSubData or TexSubImage2D
Nullify/invalidate the object after the last call (eg. draw) that uses the object either with:
Nullify: glTexSubImage2D( ..., NULL), glBufferSubData( ..., NULL)
Invalidate: glBufferInvalidate(), glMapBufferRange with the GL_MAP_INVALIDATE_BUFFER_BIT, glDeleteTextures ?
Simpliy reinvoke BufferData or TexImage2D with the new data
Manually implement object multi-buffering / buffer ping-ponging.
Most immediately, my problem scenario is: entire texture being replaced with new one of same size. How do I implement this? Will (1) implicitly synchronize ? Does (2) avoid the synchronization? Will (3) synchronize or will a new data store for the object be allocated, where our update can be uploaded without waiting for all drawing using the old object state to finish? This passage from the Red Book V4.3 makes be believe so:
Data can also be copied between buffer objects using the
glCopyBufferSubData() function. Rather than assembling chunks of data
in one large buffer object using glBufferSubData(), it is possible to
upload the data into separate buffers using glBufferData() and then
copy from those buffers into the larger buffer using
glCopyBufferSubData(). Depending on the OpenGL implementation, it may
be able to overlap these copies because each time you call
glBufferData() on a buffer object, it invalidates whatever contents
may have been there before. Therefore, OpenGL can sometimes just
allocate a whole new data store for your data, even though a copy
operation from the previous store has not completed yet. It will then
release the old storage at a later opportunity.
But if so, why the need for (2)[nullify/invalidates]?
Also, please discuss the above approaches, and others, and their effectiveness for the various scenarios, while keeping in mind atleast the following issues:
Whether implicit synchronization to object (ie. synchronizing our update with OpenGL's usage) occurs
Memory usage
Speed
I've read http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Buffer_Object_Streaming but it doesn't offer conclusive information.
Let me try to answer at least a few of the questions you raised.
The scenarios you talk about can have a great impact on the performance on the different approaches, especially when considering the first point about the dynamic size of the buffer. In your scenario of video streaming, the size will rarely change, so a more expensive "re-configuration" of the data structures you use might be possible. If the size changes every frame or every few frames, this is typically not feasable. However, if a resonable maximum size limit can be enforced, just using buffers/textures with the maximum size might be a good strategy. Neither with buffers nor with textures you have to use all the space there is (although there are some smaller issues when you do this with texures, like wrap modes).
3.Are we streaming a buffer object or texture object (any difference?)
Well, the only way to efficiently stream image data to or from the GL is to use pixel buffer objects (PBOs). So you always have to deal with buffer objects in the first place, no matter if vertex data, image data or whatever data is to be tranfered. The buffer is just the source for some glTex*Image() call in the texture case, and of course you'll need a texture object for that.
Let's come to your approaches:
In approach (1), you use the "Sub" variant of the update commands. In that case, (parts of or the whole) storage of the existing object is updated. This is likely to trigger an implicit synchronziation ifold data is still in use. The GL has basically only two options: wait for all operations (potentially) depending on that data to complete, or make an intermediate copy of the new data and let the client go on. Both options are not good from a performance point of view.
In approach (2), you have some misconception. The "Sub" variants of the update commands will never invalidate/orphan your buffers. The "non-sub" glBufferData() will create a completely new storage for the object, and using it with NULL as data pointer will leave that storage unintialized. Internally, the GL implementation might re-use some memory which was in use for earlier buffer storage. So if you do this scheme, there is some probablity that you effectively end up using a ring-buffer of the same memory areas if you always use the same buffer size.
The other methods for invalidation you mentiond allow you to also invalidate parts of the buffer and also a more fine-grained control of what is happening.
Approach (3) is basically the same as (2) with the glBufferData() oprhaning, but you just specify the new data directly at this stage.
Approach (4) is the one I actually would recommend, as it is the one which gives the application the most control over what is happening, without having to relies on the GL implementation's specific internal workings.
Without taking synchronization into account, the "sub" variant of the update commands is
more efficient, even if the whole data storage is to be changed, not just some part. That is because the "non-sub" variants of the commands basically recreate the storage and introduce some overhead with this. With manually managing the ring buffers, you can avoid any of that overhead, and you don't have to rely in the GL to be clever, by just using the "sub" variants of the updates functions. At the same time, you can avoid implicit synchroniztion by only updating buffers which aren't in use by th GL any more. This scheme can also nicely be extenden into a multi-threaded scenario. You can have one (or several) extra threads with separate (but shared) GL contexts to fill the buffers for you, and just passing the buffer handlings to the draw thread as soon as the update is complete. You can also just map the buffers in the draw thread and let the be filled by worker threads (wihtout the need for additional GL contexts at all).
OpenGL 4.4 introduced GL_ARB_buffer_storage and with it came the GL_MAP_PERSISTEN_BIT for glMapBufferRange. That will allow you to keep all of the buffers mapped while they are used by the GL - so it allows you to avoid the overhead of mapping the buffers into the address space again and again. You then will have no implicit synchronzation at all - but you have to synchronize the operations manually. OpenGL's synchronization objects (see GL_ARB_sync) might help you with that, but the main burden on synchronization is on your applications logic itself. When streaming videos to the GL, just avoid re-using the buffer which was the source for the glTexSubImage() call immediately and try to delay its re-use as long as possible. You are of course also trading throughput for latency. If you need to minimize latency, you might to have to tweak this logic a bit.
Comparing the approaches for "memory usage" is really hard. There are a lot of of implementation specific details to consider here. A GL implementation might keep some old buffer memories around for some time to fullfill recreation requests of the same size. Also, an GL implementation might make shadow copies of any data at any time. The approaches which don't orphan and recreate storages all the time in principle expose more control of the memory which is in use.
"Speed" itself is also not a very useful metric. You basically have to balance throughput and latency here, according to the requirements of your application.
We use buffer objects for reducing copy operations from CPU-GPU and for texture buffer objects we can change target from vertex to texture in buffer objects. Is there any other advantage here of texture buffer objects? Also, it does not allow filtering, is there any disadvantage of this?
A buffer texture is similar to a 1D-texture but has a backing buffer store that's not part of the texture object (in contrast to any other texture object) but realized with an actual buffer object bound to TEXTURE_BUFFER. Using a buffer texture has several implications and, AFAIK, one use-case that can't be mapped to any other type of texture.
Note that a buffer texture is not a buffer object - a buffer texture is merely associated with a buffer object using glTexBuffer.
By comparison, buffer textures can be huge. Table 23.53 and following of the core OpenGL 4.4 spec defines a minimum maximum (i.e. the minimal value that implementations must provide) number of texels MAX_TEXTURE_BUFFER_SIZE. The potential number of texels being stored in your buffer object is computed as follows (as found in GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object):
floor(<buffer_size> / (<components> * sizeof(<base_type>))
The resulting value clamped to MAX_TEXTURE_BUFFER_SIZE is the number of addressable texels.
Example:
You have a buffer object storing 4MiB of data. What you want is a buffer texture for addressing RGBA texels, so you choose an internal format RGBA8. The addressable number of texels is then
floor(4MiB / (4 * sizeof(UNSIGNED_BYTE)) == 1024^2 texels == 2^20 texels
If your implementation supports this number, you can address the full range of values in your buffer object. The above isn't too impressive and can simply be achieved with any other texture on current implementations. However, the machine on which I'm writing this answer supports 2^28 == 268435456 texels.
With OpenGL 4.4 (and 4.3 and possibly with earlier 4.x versions), the MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE is 2 ^ 16 texels per 1D-texture, so a buffer texture can still be 4 times as large. On my local machine I can allocate a 2GiB buffer texture (even larger actually), but only a 1GiB 1D-texture when using RGBAF32 texels.
A use-case for buffer textures is random (and atomic, if desired) read-/write-access (the latter via image load/store) to a large data store inside a shader. Yes, you can do random read-access on arrays of uniforms inside one or multiple blocks but it get's very tedious if you have to process a lot of data and have to work with multiple blocks and even then, looking at the maximum combined size of all uniform components (where a single float component has a size of 4 bytes) in all uniform blocks for a single stage,
MAX_(stage)_UNIFORM_BLOCKS *
MAX_UNIFORM_BLOCK_SIZE +
MAX_(stage)_UNIFORM_COMPONENTS * 4
isn't really a lot of space to work with in a shader stage (depending on how large your implementation allows the above number to be).
An important difference between textures and buffer textures is that the data store, as a regular buffer object, can be used in operations where a texture simply does not work. The extension mentions:
The use of a buffer object to provide storage allows the texture data to
be specified in a number of different ways: via buffer object loads
(BufferData), direct CPU writes (MapBuffer), framebuffer readbacks
(EXT_pixel_buffer_object extension). A buffer object can also be loaded
by transform feedback (NV_transform_feedback extension), which captures
selected transformed attributes of vertices processed by the GL. Several
of these mechanisms do not require an extra data copy, which would be
required when using conventional TexImage-like entry points.
An implication of using buffer textures is that look-ups inside a shader can only be done via texelFetch. Buffer textures also aren't mip-mapped and, as you already mentioned, during fetches there is no filtering.
Addendum:
Since OpenGL 4.3, we have what is called a
Shader Storage Buffer. These too provide random (atomic) read-/write-access to a large data store but don't need to be accessed with texelFetch() or image load/store functions as is the case for buffer textures. Using buffer textures also implies having to deal with gvec4 return values, both with texelFetch() and imageLoad() / imageStore(). This becomes very tedious as soon as you want to work with structures (or arrays thereof) and you don't want to think of some stupid packing scheme using multiple instances of vec4 or using multiple buffer textures to achieve something similar. With a buffer accessed as shader storage, you can simple index into the data store and pull one or more instances of some struct {} directly from the buffer.
Also, since they are very similar to uniform blocks, using them should be fairly straight forward - if you know how to use uniform buffers, you don't have a long way to go learn how to use shader storage buffers.
It's also absolutely worth browsing the Issues section of the corresponding ARB extension.
Performance Implications
Daniel Rakos did some performance analysis years ago, both as a comparison of uniform buffers and buffer textures, and also on a little more general note based on information from AMD's OpenCL programming guide. There is now a very recent version, specifically targeting OpenCL optimization an AMD platforms.
There are many factors influencing performance:
access patterns and resulting caching behavior
cache line sizes and memory layou
what kind of memory is accessed (registers, local, global, L1/L2 etc.) and its respective memory bandwidth
how well memory fetching latency is hidden by doing something else in the meantime
what kind of hardware you're on, i.e. a dedicated graphics card with dedicated memory or some unified memory architecture
etc., etc.
As always when worrying about performance: implement something that works and see if that solutions is fast enough for your needs. Otherwise, implement two or more approaches to solving the problem, profile them and compare.
Also, vendor specific guides can offer a great deal of insight. The above mentioned OpenCL user and optimization guides provide a high-level architectural perspective and specific hints on how to optimize your CL kernels - stuff that's also relevant when developing shaders.
A one use case I have found was to store per primitive attributes (accessed in the fragment shader with help of gl_PrimitiveID) while still maintaining unique vertices in the indexed mesh.
In this question I'm interested in buffer-drawing in OpenGL, specifically in the tradeoff of using one buffer per data set vs one buffer for more than one data set.
Context:
Consider a data set of N vertices each represented by a set of attributes (e.g. color, texture, normals).
Each attribute is represented by a type (e.g. GLfloat, GLint) and a number of components (2, 3, 4). We want to draw this data. Schematically,
(non-interleaved representation)
data set
<-------------->
a_1 a_2 a_3
<---><---><---->
a_i = attribute; e.g. a2 = (3 GLfloats representing color, thus 3*N Glfloats)
We want to map this into the GL state, using glBufferSubData.
Problem
When mapping, we have to keep track of the data in our memory because glBufferSubData requires a start and size. This sounds to me like an allocation problem: we want to allocate memory and keep track of its position. Since we want fast access to it, we would like the data to be in the same memory position, e.g. with a std::vector<char>. Schematically,
data set 1 data set 2
<------------><-------------->
(both have same buffer id)
We commit to the gl state as:
// id is binded to one std::vector<char>, "data".
glBindBuffer(target, id);
// for each data_set (AFTER calling glBindBuffer).
// for each attribute
// "start": the start point of the attribute.
// "size": (sizeof*components of the attribute)*N.
glBufferSubData(target, start, size, &(data[0]))
(non non-interleaved for the sake of the code).
the problem arises when we want to add or remove vertices, e.g. when LOD changes. Because each data set must be a chunk, for instance to allow interleaved drawing (even in non-interleaved, each attribute is a chunk), we will end up with fragmentation in our std::vector<char>.
On the other hand, we can also set one chunk per buffer: instead of assigning chunks to the same buffer, we assign each chuck, now a std::vector<char>, to a different buffer. Schematically,
data set 1 (buffer id1)
<------------>
data set 2 (buffer id2)
<-------------->
We commit data to the gl state as:
// for each data_set (BEFORE calling glBindBuffer).
// "data" is the std::vector<char> of this data_set.
// id is now binded to the specific std::vector<char>
glBindBuffer(target, id);
// for each attribute
// "start": the start point of the attribute.
// "size": (sizeof*components of the attribute)*N.
glBufferSubData(target, start, size, &(data[0]))
Questions
I'm learning this, so, before any of the below: is this reasoning correct?
Assuming yes,
Is it a problem to have an arbitrary number of buffers?
Is "glBindBuffer" expected to scale with the number of buffers?
What are the major points to take into consideration in this decision?
It is not quite clear if you asking about performance trade-offs. But I will answer in this key.
Is it a problem to have an arbitrary number of buffers?
It is a problem came from a dark medieval times when pipelines was fixed and rest for now due to backward compatibility reasons. glBind* is considered as a (one of) performance bottleneck in modern OpenGL drivers, caused by bad locality of references and cache misses. Simply speaking, cache is cold and huge part of time CPU just waits in driver for data transferred from main memory. There is nothing drivers implementers can do with current API. Read Nvidia's short article about it and their bindless extensions proposals.
2. Is "glBindBuffer" expected to scale with the number of buffers?
Surely, the more objects (buffers in your case), more bind calls, more performance loss in driver. But merged, huge resource objects are less manageable.
3. What are the major points to take into consideration in this decision?
Only one. Profiling results ;)
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil", so try to stay as much objective as possible and believe only in numbers. When numbers will go bad, we can think of:
"Huge", "all in one" resources:
less bind calls
less context changes
harder to manage and debug, need some additional code infrastructure (to update resource data for example)
resizing (reallocation) very slow
Separate resources:
more bind calls, loosing time in driver
more context changes
easier to manage, less error-prone
easy to resize, allocate, reallocate
In the end, we can see have performance-complexity trade-off and different behavior when update data. To stick one approach or another, you must:
decide, would you like to keep things simple, manageable or add complexity and gain additional FPS (profile in graphics profilers to know how much. Does it worth it?)
know how often you resize/reallocate buffers (trace API calls in graphics debuggers).
Hope it helps somehow ;)
If you like theoretical assertions like this, probably you will be interested in another one, about interleaving (DirectX one)
Imagine a typical game where objects in the simulated world are created and destroyed. When these objects are created, their vertex data is stored in a VBO. This VBO is rendered once per frame.
Is there a best practice for dealing with dead objects? I.e. when the object is destroyed and thus no longer needs to be rendered, what should happen to its corresponding VBO data?
It seems like you'd want to "free" that memory up for future use by other objects. Otherwise, your VBO would eventually be filled almost entirely with dead data.
I have one possible idea for implementing this: a map of VBO memory wherein individual bytes are marked as free or in use. (This map would live on the CPU as a normal array, not on the GPU.) When an object is created, we buffer its data to a free region as determined by the map. We mark that region as used on the map. Then when the object is destroyed, we mark that same region as free. I'm thinking you would store the map either as an array of booleans if you're lazy, or pack it in as one map bit per VBO byte if you want to do it right.
So far, does this sound like the best approach? Is there a more common approach that I'm not seeing?
I know a lot of these questions hinge on the characteristics of the scene you're rendering, so here's the context. My scene consists of several hundred objects. Each object has about eight vertices. Each vertex has a position and texture coordinate stored as floats. So, we're looking at approximately:
4 bytes per float * 6 floats per vert * 8 verts per object * 500 objects
= 96,000 bytes of vertex data
Sounds like you're thinking of using a pool allocator. There's a lot of existing work done on those, which should apply quite well to allocations inside a VBO also.
It will be pretty straightforward if all elements are the same size. Otherwise, you need to be concerned about fragmentation, but heap managers are quite well known.
The simplest improvement I would offer is to start your scan for a free slot from the last slot filled, instead of always from the beginning.
You can trade space for speed by using a deque-style data structure to store a list of free locations, which eliminates the need to scan for a free spot.
The size of the data stored in the VBO really has no impact on the manager. Only the number of slots which can be invididually repurposed.