I was doing a talk and a Q&A session at a local university. Unaware of the consequences, one guy asked about the usefulness of the programming courses they have in real work…

Oh boy. Do you really want to go there?

Now before I go ranting full steam, let me tell that there were really good courses and really bright teachers at my (otherwise unspectacular) university. Most of the math, physics and related fundamental sciences courses were good & taught by people who know their stuff. Even some of the computer science / programming courses were good!

With that aside, let’s bet back to ranting.

What is OOP?

Somehow conversation drifted to the topics of code design, architecture and whatnot. I asked the audience, for example, what do they think are the benefits of object oriented programming (OOP)? The answers were the following:

• Mumble mumble… weeelll… something something mumble. This was the majority’s opinion.

• OOP makes it very easy for a new guy to start at work, because everything nicely separated and he can just work on this one file without knowing anything else.

• Without OOP there’s no way to separate things out; everything becomes a mess.

• OOP uses classes, and they are nicer than not using classes. Because a class lets you… uhm… well I don’t know, but classes are nicer than no classes. I think it had something to do with something being in separate files. Or maybe in one file. I don’t actually know…

• I forget if there was anything else really.

Let me tell you how easy it is for a guy to start at work. You come to new place all inspired and excited. You’re being put into some unholy codebase that grew in a chaotic way over last N years and being assigned to do some random feature or fix some bugs. When you encounter anything smelly in the codebase (this happens fairly often), the answer to “WTF is this?” is most often “it came from the past, yeah, we don’t like it either” or “I dunno, this guy who left last year wrote it” or “yeah, I wrote it but it was ages ago, I don’t remember anything about it… wow! this is idiotic code indeed! just be careful, touching it might break everything”. All this is totally independent of whether the codebase used OOP or not.

I am exaggerating of course; the codebase doesn’t have to be that bad. But still; whether it’s good or not, or whether it’s easy for a new guy to start there is really not related to it being OOP.

Interesting!

Clearly they have no frigging clue what OOP is, besides of whatever they’ve been told by the teacher. And the teacher in turn knows about OOP based on what he read in one or two books. And the author of the books… well, we don’t know; depends on the book I guess. But this is at least a second-order disconnect from reality, if not more!

Why is that?

I guess part of the problem is teachers having no real actual work experience except by reading books. This can work for math. For a lot of programming courses… not so much. Another part is students learning in a vacuum, trying to kind of get what the lectures are about and pass the tests.

In both cases it’s totally separated from doing some real actual work and trying to apply what you’re trying to learn. Which leads to some funny things like…

How are floating point numbers stored?

I saw this about 11 years ago in one lecture of a C++ course. The teacher quickly explained how various types are stored in memory. He got over the integer types without trouble and started explaining floats.

So there’s one bit for the sign. Then come the digits before the decimal point. Since there are 10 possible choices for each digit, you need four bits of memory for each digit. Then comes one bit for the decimal point. After the decimal point, again you have four bits per digit. Done!

ORLY? This was awesome, especially trying to imagine how to store the decimal point.

See that decimal digit bit, haha! You see, it’s one bit and you can’t… what do you mean you don’t get it? And not only that; this needs variable length and… really? You’re going to a party instead? I wasn’t very popular.

Funny or not, this is not exactly telling a correct story on how floats are stored in memory on 101% of the architectures you’d ever care about.

I could tell a ton of other examples of little disconnects with reality, which I think are caused by not ever having to put your knowledge into practice.

Where do we go from here?

Now of course, the university I went to is not something that would be considered “good” by world standards. I went to several lectures by Henrik Wann Jensen at DTU at that was like night and day! But how many of these not-too-good-only-passable universities are around the world? I’d imagine certainly more than one, and certainly less than the number of MITs, Stanfords et al combined.

As a student, I somehow figured I should take a lot of things with a grain of salt doubt. And in a lot of cases, trying to do something for real trumps lab work / tests / exams in how much you’ll be able to learn. Go make a techdemo, a small game, play around with some techniques, try to implement that clever sounding paper from siggraph and observe it burst in flames, team up with friends while doing any of the above. Do it!

In my previous post I talked about things I’d want from OpenGL ES 2.0 in the performance area. Now it’s time to look at what extra features it might expose with an extension here or there.

Note that I’m focusing on, in my limited understanding, low-hanging fruits. The features I want already exist in the current GPUs or platforms; or could be easily made available. Of course more radical new architectures would bring more & fancier features, but that’s a topic for another story.

Programmable blending

At least two out of three big current mobile GPU families (PVR SGX, Adreno, Tegra 2) support programmable blending in the hardware. Maybe all of them do this and I just don’t have enough data. By “support it in the hardware” I mean either: 1) the GPU has no blending hardware, the drivers add “read current pixel & blend” instructions to the shaders or 2) has blending hardware for commonly used modes, but fancier modes use shader patching with no severe performance penalties.

Programmable blending is useful for various things; from deferred-style decals (blending normals is hard in fixed function!) to fancier Photoshop-like blend modes to potentially faster single-pixel image postprocessing effects (like color correction).

Currently only NVIDIA exposes this capability via NV_shader_framebuffer_fetch extension.

Suggestion: expose it on other hardware that can do this! It’s fine to not handle hard edge cases (for example, what happens when multisampling is used?), we can live with the limitations.

Direct, fast access to frame buffer on the CPU

Most (all?) mobile platforms use unified memory approach, where there’s no physical distinction between “system memory” and “video memory”. Some of those platforms are slightly unbalanced, e.g. a strong GPU coupled with a weak CPU or vice versa. More and more of those systems will have multicore CPUs. It might make sense to do similar approaches that PS3 guys are doing these days - offload some of the GPU work to the CPU(s).

Image processing, deferred lighting and similar things could be done more efficiently on a general purpose CPU, where you aren’t limited to “one pixel at a time” model of current mobile GPUs.

Suggestion: can haz get a pointer to framebuffer memory perhaps? Of course this is grossly oversimplifying all the synchronization & security issues, but something should be possible to do in order to exploit the unified memory model. Right now it just sits there largely unused, with GLES2.0 still pretending CPU is talking to a GPU over a ten meter high concrete wall.

Expose Tile Based GPU capabilities

PowerVR GPUs found in all iOS and some Android devices are so called “tile based” architectures. So is, to some extent, Qualcomm Adreno family.

Currently this capability is mostly sitting behind a black box. On PowerVR GPUs the programmer does know that “overdraw of opaque objects does not matter”, or that “alpha testing is really slow” but that’s about it. There’s no control over the whole rendering process, even if some of the things could benefit from having more control over the whole tiling thing.

Take, for example, deferred lighting/shading. The cool folks are doing it tile-based already on DirectX 11 or PS3.

On a tile-based GPU, all rendering is already happening in tiles, so what if we could say “now, you work on this tile, render this, render that; now we go this this tile”? Maybe that way we could achieve two things at once: 1) better light culling because it’s at tile level, and 2) most of the data could stay on this super-fast on-chip memory, without having to be written into system memory & later read again. Memory bandwidth is very often a limiting factor in mobile graphics performance, and ability to keep deferred lighting buffers on-chip through the whole process could cut down bandwidth requirements a lot.

Suggestion: somehow (I’m feeling very hand-wavy today) expose more control over tiled rendering. For example, explicitly say that rendering will only happen to the given tiles; and these textures are very likely to be read just after they are rendered into - so don’t resolve them to memory if they fit into on-chip one.

There’s already a Qualcomm extension of something towards that area - QCOM_tiled_rendering - though it seems to be more concerned about where does rendering happen. More control is needed on how to mark FBO textures as “keep in on-chip memory for sampling as a texture plz”.

OpenCL

Current mobile GPUs already are, or very soon will be, OpenCL capable. Also OpenCL can be implemented on the CPU, nicely SIMDified via NEON, and use multicore. DO WANT! (and while you’re at it, everything that’s doable to make interop between CL & GL faster)

This can be used for a ton of things; skinning, culling, particles, procedural animations, image postprocessing and so on. And with a much less restrictive programming model, it’s easier to reuse computation results across draw calls or frames.

Couple this with “direct access to memory on the CPU” and OpenCL could be used for more things than graphics (again I’m grossly oversimplifying here and ignoring the whole synchronization/latency/security elephant…).

MOAR?

Now of course there are more things I’d want to see, but for today I’ll take just those above, thank you. Have a nice day!

Most mobile platforms currently are based on OpenGL ES 2.0. While it is much better than traditional OpenGL, there are ways where it limits performance or does not expose some interesting hardware features. So here’s an unorganized wishlist for GLES2.0 performance part!

Note that I’m focusing on, in my limited understanding, short term low-hanging fruits how to extend/patch existing GLES2.0 API. A pipe dream would be starting from scratch, getting rid of all OpenGL baggage and hopefully come up with a much cleaner, leaner & better API, especially if it’s designed to only support some particular platform. But I digress, back to GLES2.0 for now.

No guarantees when something expensive might happen.

Due to some flexibility in GLES2.0, there might be expensive things happening at almost any point in your frame. For example, binding a texture with a different format might cause a driver to recompile a shader at the draw call time. I’ve seen 60 milliseconds on iPhone 3Gs at first draw call with a relatively simple shader, all spent inside shader compiler backend. 60 milliseconds! There are various things that can cause performance hiccups like this: texture formats, blending modes, vertex layout, non power of two textures and so on.

Suggestion: work with GPU vendors and agree on an API that could make guarantees on when the expensive resource creation / patching work can happen, and when it can’t. For example, somehow guarantee that a draw call or a state set will not cause any object recreation / shader patching in the driver. I don’t have much experience with D3D10/11, but my impression is that this was one of the things it got right, no?

Offline shader compilation.

GLES2.0 has the functionality to load binary shaders, but it’s not mandatory. Some of the big platforms (iOS, I’m looking at you) just don’t support it.

Now of course, a single platform (like iOS or Android) can have multiple different GPUs, so you can’t fully compile a shader offline into final optimized GPU microcode. But some of the full compilation cost could very well be done offline, without being specific to any particular GPU.

Suggestion: come up with a platform independent binary shader format. Something like D3D9 shader assembly is probably too low level (it assumes a vector4-based GPU, limited number of registers and so on), but something higher level should be possible. All of the shader lexing, parsing and common optimizations (constant folding, arithmetic simplifications, dead code removal etc.) can be done offline. It won’t speed up shader loading by an order of magnitude, but even if it’s possible to cut it by 20%, it’s worth it. And it would remove a very big bug surface area too!

Texture loading.

A lot (all?) of mobile platforms have unified CPU & GPU memories, however to actually load the texture we have to read or memory map it from disk and then copy into OpenGL via glTexture2D and similar functions. Then, depending on the format, the driver would internally do swizzling and alignment of texture data.

Suggestion: can’t most of this cost be removed? If for some formats it’s perfectly, statically known what layout and swizzling the GPU expects… can’t we just point the API to the data we already loaded or memory mapped? We could still need to implement the glTexture2D case for when (if ever) a totally new strange GPU comes that needs the data in a different order, but why not provide a faster path for the current GPUs?

Vertex declarations.

In unextended GLES2.0 you have to do a ton of calls just to setup vertex data. OES_vertex_array_object is a step in the right direction, providing the ability to create sets of vertex data bindings (“vertex declarations” in D3D speak). However, it builds upon an existing API, resulting in something that feels quite messy. Somehow it feels that by starting from scratch it could result in something much cleaner. Like… vertex declarations that existed in D3D since forever maybe?

Suggestion: clean up that shit! It would probably need to be tied to a vertex shader input signature (just like in D3D10/11) to guarantee there would be no shader patching, but we’d be fine with that.

Shader uniforms are per shader program.

What it says - shader uniforms (“constants” in D3D speak) are not global; they are tied to a specific shader program. I don’t quite understand why, and I don’t think any GPU works that way. This is causing complexities and/or performance loss in the driver (it either has to save & restore all uniform values on each shader change, or have dirty tracking on which uniforms have changed etc.). It also causes unneeded uniform sets on the client side - instead of having, for example, view*projection matrix set just once per frame it has to be set for each shader program that we use.

Suggestion: just get rid of that? If you need to not break the existing spec, how about adding an extension to make all uniforms global? I propose glCanHaz(GL_OES_GLOBAL_UNIFORMS_PLZ)

Next up:

Next time, I’ll take a look at my unorganized wishlist for mobile graphics features!

Warning: a post with stupid questions and no answers whatsoever!

You need to do ten thousand things for the gold master / release / ShipIt(tm) moment. And you have 40 people who do the actual work… this means each of them only has to do 10000/40=250 things, which is not that bad. Right?

Meanwhile in the real world… it does not actually work like that. And that’s something that has been on my mind for a long time. I don’t know how much of this is truth vs. perception, or what to do about it. But here’s my feeling, simplified:

20 percent of the people are responsible for getting 80 percent of the work done

I am somewhat exaggerating just to keep it consistent with the Pareto principle. But my feeling is that “work done” distribution is highly non uniform everywhere I worked where the team was more than a handful of people.

Here are some stupid statistics to illustrate my point (with graphs, and everyone loves graphs!):

Graph of bugs fixed per developer, over one week during the bug fixing phase. Red/yellow/green corresponds to priority 1,2,3 issues:

The distribution of bugs fixes is, shall we say, somewhat non uniform.

Is it a valid measure of “productivity”? Absolutely not. Some people probably haven’t been fixing bugs at all that week. Some bugs are way harder to fix than others. Some people could have made major part of the fix, but the finishing touches & the act of actually resolving the bug was made by someone else. So yes, this statistics is absolutely flawed, but do we have anything else?

We could be checking version control commits.

Or putting the same into “commits by developer”:

Of course this is even easier to game than resolving bugs. “Moving buttons to the left”, “Whoops, that was wrong, moving them to the right again” anyone? And people will be trolling statistics just because they can.

However, there is still this highly subjective “feeling” that some folks are way, way faster than others. And not in just “can do some mess real fast” way, but in the “gets actual work done, and done well” way.

Or is it just my experience? How is it in your company? What can be done about it? Should something be done about it? I don’t know the answers…

You are writing some system where different implementations have to be used for different platforms. To keep things real, let’s say it’s a rendering system which we’ll call “GfxDevice” (based on a true story!). For example, on Windows there could be a Direct3D 9, Direct3D 11 or OpenGL implementations; on iOS/Android there could be OpenGL ES 1.1 & 2.0 ones and so on.

For sake of simplicity, let’s say our GfxDevice interface needs to do this (in real world it would need to do much more):

void SetShader (ShaderType type, ShaderID shader);
void SetTexture (int unit, TextureID texture);
void SetGeometry (VertexBufferID vb, IndexBufferID ib);
void Draw (PrimitiveType prim, int primCount);

How this can be done?

Approach #1: virtual interface!

Many a programmer would think like this: why of course, GfxDevice is an interface with virtual functions, and then we have multiple implementations of it. Sounds good, and that’s what you would have been taught at the university in various software design courses. Here we go:

class GfxDevice {
public:
    virtual ~GfxDevice();
    virtual void SetShader (ShaderType type, ShaderID shader) = 0;
    virtual void SetTexture (int unit, TextureID texture) = 0;
    virtual void SetGeometry (VertexBufferID vb, IndexBufferID ib) = 0;
    virtual void Draw (PrimitiveType prim, int primCount) = 0;
};
// and then we have:
class GfxDeviceD3D9 : public GfxDevice {
    // ...
};
class GfxDeviceGLES20 : public GfxDevice {
    // ...
};
class GfxDeviceGCM : public GfxDevice {
    // ...
};
// and so on

And then based on platform (or something else) you create the right GfxDevice implementation, and the rest of the code uses that. This is all good and it works.

But then… hey! Some platforms can only ever have one GfxDevice implementation. On PS3 you will always end up using GfxDeviceGCM. Does it really make sense to have virtual functions on that platform?

Side note: of course the cost of a virtual function call is not something that stands out immediately. It’s much less than, for example, doing a network request to get the leaderboards or parsing that XML file that ended up in your game for reasons no one can remember. Virtual function calls will not show up in the profiler as “a heavy bottleneck”. However, they are not free and their cost will be scattered around in a million places that is very hard to eradicate. You can end up having death by a thousand paper cuts.

If we want to get rid of virtual functions on platforms where they are useless, what can we do?

Approach #2: preprocessor to the rescue

We just have to take out the “virtual” bit from the interface, and the “= 0” abstract function bit. With a bit of preprocessor we can:

#define GFX_DEVICE_VIRTUAL (PLATFORM_WINDOWS || PLATFORM_MOBILE_UNIVERSAL || SOMETHING_ELSE)
#if GFX_DEVICE_VIRTUAL
    #define GFX_API virtual
    #define GFX_PURE = 0
#else
    #define GFX_API
    #define GFX_PURE
#endif
class GfxDevice {
public:
    GFX_API ~GfxDevice();
    GFX_API void SetShader (ShaderType type, ShaderID shader) GFX_PURE;
    GFX_API void SetTexture (int unit, TextureID texture) GFX_PURE;
    GFX_API void SetGeometry (VertexBufferID vb, IndexBufferID ib) GFX_PURE;
    GFX_API void Draw (PrimitiveType prim, int primCount) GFX_PURE;
};

And then there’s no separate class called GfxDeviceGCM for PS3; it’s just GfxDevice class implementing non-virtual methods. You have to make sure you don’t try to compile multiple GfxDevice class implementations on PS3 of course.

Ta-da! Virtual functions are gone on some platforms and life is good.

But we still have the other platforms, where there can be more than one GfxDevice implementation, and the decision for which one to use is made at runtime. Like our good old friend the PC: you could use Direct3D 9 or Direct3D 11 or OpenGL, based on the OS, GPU capabilities or user’s preference. Or a mobile platform where you don’t know whether OpenGL ES 2.0 will be available and you’d have to fallback to OpenGL ES 1.1.

Let’s think about what virtual functions actually are

How virtual functions work? Usually they work like this: each object gets a “pointer to a virtual function table” as it’s first hidden member. The virtual function table (vtable) is then just pointers to where the functions are in the code. Something like this:

The key points are: 1) each object’s data starts with a vtable pointer, and 2) vtable layout for classes implementing the same interface is the same.

When the compiler generates code for something like this:

device->Draw (kPrimTriangles, 1337);

it will generate something like the following pseudo-assembly:

vtable = load pointer from [device] address
drawlocation = vtable + 3*PointerSize ; since Draw is at index [3] in vtable
drawfunction = load pointer from [drawlocation] address
pass device pointer, kPrimTriangles and 1337 as arguments
call into code at [drawfunction] address

This code will work no matter if device is of GfxDeviceGLES20 or GfxDeviceGLES11 kind. For both cases, the first pointer in the object will point to the appropriate vtable, and the fourth pointer in the vtable will point to the appropriate Draw function.

By the way, the above illustrates the overhead of a virtual function call. If we’d assume a platform where we have an in-order CPU and reading from memory takes 500 CPU cycles (which is not far from truth for current consoles), then if nothing we need is in the CPU cache yet, this is what actually happens:

vtable = load pointer from [device] address
; *wait 500 cycles* until the pointer arrives
drawlocation = vtable + 3*PointerSize
drawfunction = load pointer from [drawlocation] address
; *wait 500 cycles* until the pointer arrives
pass device pointer, kPrimTriangles and 1337 as arguments
call into code at [drawfunction] address
; *wait 500 cycles* until code at that address is loaded

Can we do better?

Look at the picture in the previous paragraph and remember the “wait 500 cycles” for each pointer we are chasing. Can we reduce the number of pointer chases? Of course we can: why not ditch the vtable altogether, and just put function pointers directly into the GfxDevice object?

Virtual tables are implemented in this way mostly to save space. If we had 10000 objects of some class that has 20 virtual methods, we only pay one pointer overhead per object (40000 bytes on 32 bit architecture) and we store the vtable (20*4=80 bytes on 32 bit arch) just once, in total 39.14 kilobytes.

If we’d move all function pointers into objects themselves, we’d need to store 20 function pointers in each object. Which would be 781.25 kilobytes! Clearly this approach does not scale with increasing object instance counts.

However, how many GfxDevice object instances do we really have? Most often… exactly one.

Approach #3: function pointers

If we move function pointers to the object itself, we’d have something like this:

There’s no built-in language support for implementing this in C++ however, so that would have to be done manually. Something like:

struct GfxDeviceFunctions {
    SetShaderFunc SetShader;
    SetTextureFunc SetTexture;
    SetGeometryFunc SetGeometry;
    DrawFunc Draw;
};
class GfxDeviceGLES20 : public GfxDeviceFunctions {
    // ...
};

And then when creating a particular GfxDevice, you have to fill in the function pointers yourself. And the functions were member functions which magically take “this” parameter; it’s hard to just use them as function pointers without going to clumsy C++ member function pointer syntax and related issues.

We can be more explicit, C style, and instead just have the functions be static, taking “this” parameter directly:

class GfxDeviceGLES20 : public GfxDeviceFunctions {
    // ...
    static void DrawImpl (GfxDevice* self, PrimitiveType prim, int primCount);
    // ...
};

Code that uses it would look like this then:

device->Draw (device, kPrimTriangles, 1337);

and it would generate the following pseudo-assembly:

drawlocation = device + 3*PointerSize
drawfunction = load pointer from [drawlocation] address
; *wait 500 cycles* until the pointer arrives
pass device pointer, kPrimTriangles and 1337 as arguments
call into code at [drawfunction] address
; *wait 500 cycles* until code at that address is loaded

Look at that, one of “wait 500 cycles” is gone!

More C style

We could move function pointers outside of GfxDevice if we want to, and just make them global:

In GLES1.1 case, that global GfxDevice funcs block would point to different pieces of code. And the pseudocode for this:

// global variables!
SetShaderFunc GfxSetShader;
SetTextureFunc GfxSetTexture;
SetGeometryFunc GfxSetGeometry;
DrawFunc GfxDraw;
// GLES2.0 implementation:
void GfxDrawGLES20 (GfxDevice* self, PrimitiveType prim, int primCount) { /* ... */ }

Code that uses it:

GfxDraw (device, kPrimTriangles, 1337);

and the pseudo-assembly:

drawfunction = load pointer from [GfxDraw variable] address
; wait 500 cycles until the pointer arrives
pass device pointer, kPrimTriangles and 1337 as arguments
call into code at [drawfunction] address
; wait 500 cycles until code at that address is loaded

Is it worth it?

I can hear some saying, “what? throwing away C++ OOP and implementing the same in almost raw C?! you’re crazy!”

Whether going the above route is better or worse is mostly a matter of programming style and preferences. It does get rid of one “wait 500 cycles” in the worst case for sure. And yes, to get that you do lose some of automagic syntax sugar in C++.

Is it worth it? Like always, depends on a lot of things. But if you do find yourself pondering the virtual function overhead for singleton-like objects, or especially if you do see that your profiler reports cache misses when calling into them, at least you’ll know one of the many possible alternatives, right?

And yeah, another alternative that’s easy to do on some platforms? Just put different GfxDevice implementations into dynamically loaded libraries, exposing the same set of functions. Which would end up being very similar to the last approach of “store function pointer table globally”, except you’d get some compiler syntax sugar to make it easier; and you wouldn’t even need to load the code that is not going to be used.