2023-08-15 16:20:26 +02:00
|
|
|
/* SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2023 Blender Authors
|
2023-05-31 16:19:06 +02:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "testing/testing.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "FN_multi_function.hh"
|
2020-06-22 15:50:08 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "FN_multi_function_builder.hh"
|
2021-08-20 13:14:39 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "FN_multi_function_test_common.hh"
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
namespace blender::fn::multi_function::tests {
|
2020-08-05 17:18:56 +02:00
|
|
|
namespace {
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class AddFunction : public MultiFunction {
|
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
|
AddFunction()
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
2023-01-07 18:00:37 +01:00
|
|
|
static Signature signature = []() {
|
|
|
|
|
Signature signature;
|
|
|
|
|
SignatureBuilder builder("Add", signature);
|
|
|
|
|
builder.single_input<int>("A");
|
|
|
|
|
builder.single_input<int>("B");
|
|
|
|
|
builder.single_output<int>("Result");
|
|
|
|
|
return signature;
|
|
|
|
|
}();
|
2021-03-22 11:57:24 +01:00
|
|
|
this->set_signature(&signature);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
void call(const IndexMask &mask, Params params, Context /*context*/) const override
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
{
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
const VArray<int> &a = params.readonly_single_input<int>(0, "A");
|
|
|
|
|
const VArray<int> &b = params.readonly_single_input<int>(1, "B");
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
MutableSpan<int> result = params.uninitialized_single_output<int>(2, "Result");
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
mask.foreach_index([&](const int64_t i) { result[i] = a[i] + b[i]; });
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, AddFunction)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
AddFunction fn;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> input1 = {4, 5, 6};
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> input2 = {10, 20, 30};
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> output(3, -1);
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({0, 2}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_readonly_single_input(input1.as_span());
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_readonly_single_input(input2.as_span());
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_uninitialized_single_output(output.as_mutable_span());
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(output[0], 14);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(output[1], -1);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(output[2], 36);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, AddPrefixFunction)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
AddPrefixFunction fn;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Array<std::string> strings = {
|
|
|
|
|
"Hello",
|
|
|
|
|
"World",
|
|
|
|
|
"This is a test",
|
|
|
|
|
"Another much longer string to trigger an allocation",
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std::string prefix = "AB";
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({0, 2, 3}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_readonly_single_input(&prefix);
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_single_mutable(strings.as_mutable_span());
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(strings[0], "ABHello");
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(strings[1], "World");
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(strings[2], "ABThis is a test");
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(strings[3], "ABAnother much longer string to trigger an allocation");
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, CreateRangeFunction)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
CreateRangeFunction fn;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-20 13:14:39 +02:00
|
|
|
GVectorArray ranges(CPPType::get<int>(), 5);
|
|
|
|
|
GVectorArray_TypedMutableRef<int> ranges_ref{ranges};
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> sizes = {3, 0, 6, 1, 4};
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({0, 1, 2, 3}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_readonly_single_input(sizes.as_span());
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_vector_output(ranges);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges[0].size(), 3);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges[1].size(), 0);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges[2].size(), 6);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges[3].size(), 1);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges[4].size(), 0);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges_ref[0][0], 0);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges_ref[0][1], 1);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges_ref[0][2], 2);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges_ref[2][0], 0);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(ranges_ref[2][1], 1);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, GenericAppendFunction)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
2020-07-17 14:15:06 +02:00
|
|
|
GenericAppendFunction fn(CPPType::get<int32_t>());
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2020-07-17 14:15:06 +02:00
|
|
|
GVectorArray vectors(CPPType::get<int32_t>(), 4);
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
GVectorArray_TypedMutableRef<int> vectors_ref{vectors};
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
vectors_ref.append(0, 1);
|
|
|
|
|
vectors_ref.append(0, 2);
|
|
|
|
|
vectors_ref.append(2, 6);
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> values = {5, 7, 3, 1};
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask(IndexRange(vectors.size()));
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_vector_mutable(vectors);
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_readonly_single_input(values.as_span());
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors[0].size(), 3);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors[1].size(), 1);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors[2].size(), 2);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors[3].size(), 1);
|
2020-06-16 16:35:57 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[0][0], 1);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[0][1], 2);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[0][2], 5);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[1][0], 7);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[2][0], 6);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[2][1], 3);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vectors_ref[3][0], 1);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-06-30 17:59:33 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, CustomMF_Constant)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
CustomMF_Constant<int> fn{42};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> outputs(4, 0);
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({0, 2, 3}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-06-30 17:59:33 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_uninitialized_single_output(outputs.as_mutable_span());
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-06-30 17:59:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-06-30 17:59:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[0], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[1], 0);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[2], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[3], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, CustomMF_GenericConstant)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
int value = 42;
|
2021-09-11 13:05:20 +02:00
|
|
|
CustomMF_GenericConstant fn{CPPType::get<int32_t>(), (const void *)&value, false};
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> outputs(4, 0);
|
|
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({0, 1, 2}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_uninitialized_single_output(outputs.as_mutable_span());
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[0], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[1], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[2], 42);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(outputs[3], 0);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, CustomMF_GenericConstantArray)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
std::array<int, 4> values = {3, 4, 5, 6};
|
|
|
|
|
CustomMF_GenericConstantArray fn{GSpan(Span(values))};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
GVectorArray vector_array{CPPType::get<int32_t>(), 4};
|
|
|
|
|
GVectorArray_TypedMutableRef<int> vector_array_ref{vector_array};
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
IndexMaskMemory memory;
|
|
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask = IndexMask::from_indices<int>({1, 2, 3}, memory);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
params.add_vector_output(vector_array);
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array[0].size(), 0);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array[1].size(), 4);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array[2].size(), 4);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array[3].size(), 4);
|
2020-07-20 12:16:20 +02:00
|
|
|
for (int i = 1; i < 4; i++) {
|
2021-03-21 19:31:24 +01:00
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array_ref[i][0], 3);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array_ref[i][1], 4);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array_ref[i][2], 5);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(vector_array_ref[i][3], 6);
|
2020-07-07 19:34:35 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
TEST(multi_function, IgnoredOutputs)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
OptionalOutputsFunction fn;
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask(10);
|
|
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_ignored_single_output("Out 1");
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_ignored_single_output("Out 2");
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
Array<int> results_1(10);
|
|
|
|
|
Array<std::string> results_2(10, NoInitialization());
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
const IndexMask mask(10);
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
ParamsBuilder params(fn, &mask);
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
params.add_uninitialized_single_output(results_1.as_mutable_span(), "Out 1");
|
|
|
|
|
params.add_uninitialized_single_output(results_2.as_mutable_span(), "Out 2");
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
ContextBuilder context;
|
BLI: refactor IndexMask for better performance and memory usage
Goals of this refactor:
* Reduce memory consumption of `IndexMask`. The old `IndexMask` uses an
`int64_t` for each index which is more than necessary in pretty much all
practical cases currently. Using `int32_t` might still become limiting
in the future in case we use this to index e.g. byte buffers larger than
a few gigabytes. We also don't want to template `IndexMask`, because
that would cause a split in the "ecosystem", or everything would have to
be implemented twice or templated.
* Allow for more multi-threading. The old `IndexMask` contains a single
array. This is generally good but has the problem that it is hard to fill
from multiple-threads when the final size is not known from the beginning.
This is commonly the case when e.g. converting an array of bool to an
index mask. Currently, this kind of code only runs on a single thread.
* Allow for efficient set operations like join, intersect and difference.
It should be possible to multi-thread those operations.
* It should be possible to iterate over an `IndexMask` very efficiently.
The most important part of that is to avoid all memory access when iterating
over continuous ranges. For some core nodes (e.g. math nodes), we generate
optimized code for the cases of irregular index masks and simple index ranges.
To achieve these goals, a few compromises had to made:
* Slicing of the mask (at specific indices) and random element access is
`O(log #indices)` now, but with a low constant factor. It should be possible
to split a mask into n approximately equally sized parts in `O(n)` though,
making the time per split `O(1)`.
* Using range-based for loops does not work well when iterating over a nested
data structure like the new `IndexMask`. Therefor, `foreach_*` functions with
callbacks have to be used. To avoid extra code complexity at the call site,
the `foreach_*` methods support multi-threading out of the box.
The new data structure splits an `IndexMask` into an arbitrary number of ordered
`IndexMaskSegment`. Each segment can contain at most `2^14 = 16384` indices. The
indices within a segment are stored as `int16_t`. Each segment has an additional
`int64_t` offset which allows storing arbitrary `int64_t` indices. This approach
has the main benefits that segments can be processed/constructed individually on
multiple threads without a serial bottleneck. Also it reduces the memory
requirements significantly.
For more details see comments in `BLI_index_mask.hh`.
I did a few tests to verify that the data structure generally improves
performance and does not cause regressions:
* Our field evaluation benchmarks take about as much as before. This is to be
expected because we already made sure that e.g. add node evaluation is
vectorized. The important thing here is to check that changes to the way we
iterate over the indices still allows for auto-vectorization.
* Memory usage by a mask is about 1/4 of what it was before in the average case.
That's mainly caused by the switch from `int64_t` to `int16_t` for indices.
In the worst case, the memory requirements can be larger when there are many
indices that are very far away. However, when they are far away from each other,
that indicates that there aren't many indices in total. In common cases, memory
usage can be way lower than 1/4 of before, because sub-ranges use static memory.
* For some more specific numbers I benchmarked `IndexMask::from_bools` in
`index_mask_from_selection` on 10.000.000 elements at various probabilities for
`true` at every index:
```
Probability Old New
0 4.6 ms 0.8 ms
0.001 5.1 ms 1.3 ms
0.2 8.4 ms 1.8 ms
0.5 15.3 ms 3.0 ms
0.8 20.1 ms 3.0 ms
0.999 25.1 ms 1.7 ms
1 13.5 ms 1.1 ms
```
Pull Request: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/pulls/104629
2023-05-24 18:11:41 +02:00
|
|
|
fn.call(mask, params, context);
|
2021-09-14 14:52:44 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(results_1[0], 5);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(results_1[3], 5);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(results_1[9], 5);
|
|
|
|
|
EXPECT_EQ(results_2[0], "hello, this is a long string");
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-08-05 17:18:56 +02:00
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
2023-01-07 17:32:28 +01:00
|
|
|
} // namespace blender::fn::multi_function::tests
|
