Home > Articles > Programming

  • Print
  • + Share This
This chapter is from the book

15.8. Performance and Optimization

We’ll now consider several examples of optimization in hardware-based rendering. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather a set of model techniques from which you can draw ideas to generate your own optimizations when you need them.

15.8.1. Abstraction Considerations

Many performance optimizations will come at the price of significantly complicating the implementation. Weigh the performance advantage of an optimization against the additional cost of debugging and code maintenance. High-level algorithmic optimizations may require significant thought and restructuring of code, but they tend to yield the best tradeoff of performance for code complexity. For example, simply dividing the screen in half and asynchronously rendering each side on a separate processor nearly doubles performance at the cost of perhaps 50 additional lines of code that do not interact with the inner loop of the renderer.

In contrast, consider some low-level optimizations that we intentionally passed over. These include reducing common subexpressions (e.g., mapping all of those repeated divisions to multiplications by an inverse that is computed once) and lifting constants outside loops. Performing those destroys the clarity of the algorithm, but will probably gain only a 50% throughput improvement.

This is not to say that low-level optimizations are not worthwhile. But they are primarily worthwhile when you have completed your high-level optimizations; at that point you are more willing to complicate your code and its maintenance because you are done adding features.

15.8.2. Architectural Considerations

common.jpg The primary difference between the simple rasterizer and ray caster described in this chapter is that the “for each pixel” and “for each triangle” loops have the opposite nesting. This is a trivial change and the body of the inner loop is largely similar in each case. But the trivial change has profound implications for memory access patterns and how we can algorithmically optimize each.

Scene triangles are typically stored in the heap. They may be in a flat 1D array, or arranged in a more sophisticated data structure. If they are in a simple data structure such as an array, then we can ensure reasonable memory coherence by iterating through them in the same order that they appear in memory. That produces efficient cache behavior. However, that iteration also requires substantial bandwidth because the entire scene will be processed for each pixel. If we use a more sophisticated data structure, then we likely will reduce bandwidth but also reduce memory coherence. Furthermore, adjacent pixels likely sample the same triangle, but by the time we have iterated through to testing that triangle again it is likely to have been flushed from the cache. A popular low-level optimization for a ray tracer is to trace a bundle of rays called a ray packet through adjacent pixels. These rays likely traverse the scene data structure in a similar way, which increases memory coherence. On a SIMD processor a single thread can trace an entire packet simultaneously. However, packet tracing suffers from computational coherence problems. Sometimes different rays in the same packet progress to different parts of the scene data structure or branch different ways in the ray intersection test. In these cases, processing multiple rays simultaneously on a thread gives no advantage because memory coherence is lost or both sides of the branch must be taken. As a result, fast ray tracers are often designed to trace packets through very sophisticated data structures. They are typically limited not by computation but by memory performance problems arising from resultant cache inefficiency.

Because frame buffer storage per pixel is often much smaller than scene structure per triangle, the rasterizer has an inherent memory performance advantage over the ray tracer. A rasterizer reads each triangle into memory and then processes it to completion, iterating over many pixels. Those pixels must be adjacent to each other in space. For a row-major image, if we iterate along rows, then the pixels covered by the triangle are also adjacent in memory and we will have excellent coherence and fairly low memory bandwidth in the inner loop. Furthermore, we can process multiple adjacent pixels, either horizontally or vertically, simultaneously on a SIMD architecture. These will be highly memory and branch coherent because we’re stepping along a single triangle. There are many variations on ray casting and rasterization that improve their asymptotic behavior. However, these algorithms have historically been applied to only millions of triangles and pixels. At those sizes, constant factors like coherence still drive the performance of the algorithms, and rasterization’s superior coherence properties have made it preferred for high-performance rendering. The cost of this coherence is that after even the few optimizations needed to get real-time performance from a rasterizer, the code becomes so littered with bit-manipulation tricks and highly derived terms that the elegance of a simple ray cast seems very attractive from a software engineering perspective. This difference is only magnified when we make the rendering algorithm more sophisticated. The conventional wisdom is that ray-tracing algorithms are elegant and easy to extend but are hard to optimize, and rasterization algorithms are very efficient but are awkward and hard to augment with new features. Of course, one can always make a ray tracer fast and ugly (which packet tracing succeeds at admirably) and a rasterizer extensible but slow (e.g., Pixar’s RenderMan, which was used extensively in film rendering over the past two decades).

15.8.3. Early-Depth-Test Example

One simple optimization that can significantly improve performance, yet only minimally affects clarity, is an early depth test. Both the rasterizer and the ray-tracer structures sometimes shaded a point, only to later find that some other point was closer to the surface. As an optimization, we might first find the closest point before doing any shading, then go back and shade the point that was closest. In ray tracing, each pixel is processed to completion before moving to the next, so this involves running the entire visibility loop for one pixel, maintaining the shading inputs for the closest-known intersection at each iteration, and then shading after that loop terminates. In rasterization, pixels are processed many times, so we have to make a complete first pass to determine visibility and then a second pass to do shading. This is called an early-depth pass [HW96] if it primes depthBuffer so that only the surface that shades will pass the inner test. The process is called deferred shading if it also accumulates the shading parameters so that they do not need to be recomputed. This style of rendering was first introduced by Whitted and Weimer [WW82] to compute shading independent from visibility at a time when primary visibility computation was considered expensive. Within a decade it was considered a method to accelerate complex rendering toward real-time rendering (and the “deferred” term was coined) [MEP92], and today its use is widespread as a further optimization on hardware platforms that already achieve real time for complex scenes.

For a scene that has high depth complexity (i.e., in which many triangles project to the same point in the image) and an expensive shading routine, the performance benefit of an early depth test is significant. The cost of rendering a pixel without an early depth test is Ο(tv + ts), where t is the number of triangles, v is the time for a visibility test, and s is the time for shading. This is an upper bound. When we are lucky and always encounter the closest triangle first, the performance matches the lower bound of Ω(tv + s) since we only shade once. The early-depth optimization ensures that we are always in this lower-bound case. We have seen how rasterization can drive the cost of v very low—it can be reduced to a few additions per pixel—at which point the challenge becomes reducing the number of triangles tested at each pixel. Unfortunately, that is not as simple. Strategies exist for obtaining expected Ο(v log t + s) rendering times for scenes with certain properties, but they significantly increase code complexity.

15.8.4. When Early Optimization Is Good

The domain of graphics raises two time-based exceptions to the general rule of thumb to avoid premature optimization. The more significant of these exceptions is that when low-level optimizations can accelerate a rendering algorithm just enough to make it run at interactive rates, it might be worth making those optimizations early in the development process. It is much easier to debug an interactive rendering system than an offline one. Interaction allows you to quickly experiment with new viewpoints and scene variations, effectively giving you a true 3D perception of your data instead of a 2D slice. If that lets you debug faster, then the optimization has increased your ability to work with the code despite the added complexity. The other exception applies when the render time is just at the threshold of your patience. Most programmers are willing to wait for 30 seconds for an image to render, but they will likely leave the computer or switch tasks if the render time is, say, more than two minutes. Every time you switch tasks or leave the computer you’re amplifying the time cost of debugging, because on your return you have to recall what you were doing before you left and get back into the development flow. If you can reduce the render time to something you are willing to wait for, then you have cut your debugging time and made the process sufficiently more pleasant that your productivity will again rise despite increased code complexity. We enshrine these ideas in a principle:

15.8.5. Improving the Asymptotic Bound

To scale to truly large scenes, no linear-time rendering algorithm suffices. We must somehow eliminate whole parts of the scene without actually touching their data even once. Data structures for this are a classic area of computer graphics that continues to be a hot research topic. The basic idea behind most of these is the same as behind using tree and bucket data structures for search and sort problems. Visibility testing is primarily a search operation, where we are searching for the closest ray intersection with the scene. If we precompute a treelike data structure that orders the scene primitives in some way that allows conservatively culling a constant fraction of the primitives at each layer, we will approach Ο(log n)-time visibility testing for the entire scene, instead of Ο(n) in the number of primitives. When the cost of traversing tree nodes is sufficiently low, this strategy scales well for arbitrarily constructed scenes and allows an exponential increase in the number of primitives we can render in a fixed time. For scenes with specific kinds of structure we may be able to do even better. For example, say that we could find an indexing scheme or hash function that can divide our scene into Ο(n) buckets that allow conservative culling with Ο(1) primitives per bucket. This would approach Ο(d)-time visibility testing in the distance d to the first intersection. When that distance is small (e.g., in twisty corridors), the runtime of this scheme for static scenes becomes independent of the number of primitives and we can theoretically render arbitrarily large scenes. See Chapter 37 for a detailed discussion of algorithms based on these ideas.

  • + Share This
  • 🔖 Save To Your Account

InformIT Promotional Mailings & Special Offers

I would like to receive exclusive offers and hear about products from InformIT and its family of brands. I can unsubscribe at any time.

Overview


Pearson Education, Inc., 221 River Street, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, (Pearson) presents this site to provide information about products and services that can be purchased through this site.

This privacy notice provides an overview of our commitment to privacy and describes how we collect, protect, use and share personal information collected through this site. Please note that other Pearson websites and online products and services have their own separate privacy policies.

Collection and Use of Information


To conduct business and deliver products and services, Pearson collects and uses personal information in several ways in connection with this site, including:

Questions and Inquiries

For inquiries and questions, we collect the inquiry or question, together with name, contact details (email address, phone number and mailing address) and any other additional information voluntarily submitted to us through a Contact Us form or an email. We use this information to address the inquiry and respond to the question.

Online Store

For orders and purchases placed through our online store on this site, we collect order details, name, institution name and address (if applicable), email address, phone number, shipping and billing addresses, credit/debit card information, shipping options and any instructions. We use this information to complete transactions, fulfill orders, communicate with individuals placing orders or visiting the online store, and for related purposes.

Surveys

Pearson may offer opportunities to provide feedback or participate in surveys, including surveys evaluating Pearson products, services or sites. Participation is voluntary. Pearson collects information requested in the survey questions and uses the information to evaluate, support, maintain and improve products, services or sites, develop new products and services, conduct educational research and for other purposes specified in the survey.

Contests and Drawings

Occasionally, we may sponsor a contest or drawing. Participation is optional. Pearson collects name, contact information and other information specified on the entry form for the contest or drawing to conduct the contest or drawing. Pearson may collect additional personal information from the winners of a contest or drawing in order to award the prize and for tax reporting purposes, as required by law.

Newsletters

If you have elected to receive email newsletters or promotional mailings and special offers but want to unsubscribe, simply email information@informit.com.

Service Announcements

On rare occasions it is necessary to send out a strictly service related announcement. For instance, if our service is temporarily suspended for maintenance we might send users an email. Generally, users may not opt-out of these communications, though they can deactivate their account information. However, these communications are not promotional in nature.

Customer Service

We communicate with users on a regular basis to provide requested services and in regard to issues relating to their account we reply via email or phone in accordance with the users' wishes when a user submits their information through our Contact Us form.

Other Collection and Use of Information


Application and System Logs

Pearson automatically collects log data to help ensure the delivery, availability and security of this site. Log data may include technical information about how a user or visitor connected to this site, such as browser type, type of computer/device, operating system, internet service provider and IP address. We use this information for support purposes and to monitor the health of the site, identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents and appropriately scale computing resources.

Web Analytics

Pearson may use third party web trend analytical services, including Google Analytics, to collect visitor information, such as IP addresses, browser types, referring pages, pages visited and time spent on a particular site. While these analytical services collect and report information on an anonymous basis, they may use cookies to gather web trend information. The information gathered may enable Pearson (but not the third party web trend services) to link information with application and system log data. Pearson uses this information for system administration and to identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents, appropriately scale computing resources and otherwise support and deliver this site and its services.

Cookies and Related Technologies

This site uses cookies and similar technologies to personalize content, measure traffic patterns, control security, track use and access of information on this site, and provide interest-based messages and advertising. Users can manage and block the use of cookies through their browser. Disabling or blocking certain cookies may limit the functionality of this site.

Do Not Track

This site currently does not respond to Do Not Track signals.

Security


Pearson uses appropriate physical, administrative and technical security measures to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use and disclosure.

Children


This site is not directed to children under the age of 13.

Marketing


Pearson may send or direct marketing communications to users, provided that

  • Pearson will not use personal information collected or processed as a K-12 school service provider for the purpose of directed or targeted advertising.
  • Such marketing is consistent with applicable law and Pearson's legal obligations.
  • Pearson will not knowingly direct or send marketing communications to an individual who has expressed a preference not to receive marketing.
  • Where required by applicable law, express or implied consent to marketing exists and has not been withdrawn.

Pearson may provide personal information to a third party service provider on a restricted basis to provide marketing solely on behalf of Pearson or an affiliate or customer for whom Pearson is a service provider. Marketing preferences may be changed at any time.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information


If a user's personally identifiable information changes (such as your postal address or email address), we provide a way to correct or update that user's personal data provided to us. This can be done on the Account page. If a user no longer desires our service and desires to delete his or her account, please contact us at customer-service@informit.com and we will process the deletion of a user's account.

Choice/Opt-out


Users can always make an informed choice as to whether they should proceed with certain services offered by InformIT. If you choose to remove yourself from our mailing list(s) simply visit the following page and uncheck any communication you no longer want to receive: www.informit.com/u.aspx.

Sale of Personal Information


Pearson does not rent or sell personal information in exchange for any payment of money.

While Pearson does not sell personal information, as defined in Nevada law, Nevada residents may email a request for no sale of their personal information to NevadaDesignatedRequest@pearson.com.

Supplemental Privacy Statement for California Residents


California residents should read our Supplemental privacy statement for California residents in conjunction with this Privacy Notice. The Supplemental privacy statement for California residents explains Pearson's commitment to comply with California law and applies to personal information of California residents collected in connection with this site and the Services.

Sharing and Disclosure


Pearson may disclose personal information, as follows:

  • As required by law.
  • With the consent of the individual (or their parent, if the individual is a minor)
  • In response to a subpoena, court order or legal process, to the extent permitted or required by law
  • To protect the security and safety of individuals, data, assets and systems, consistent with applicable law
  • In connection the sale, joint venture or other transfer of some or all of its company or assets, subject to the provisions of this Privacy Notice
  • To investigate or address actual or suspected fraud or other illegal activities
  • To exercise its legal rights, including enforcement of the Terms of Use for this site or another contract
  • To affiliated Pearson companies and other companies and organizations who perform work for Pearson and are obligated to protect the privacy of personal information consistent with this Privacy Notice
  • To a school, organization, company or government agency, where Pearson collects or processes the personal information in a school setting or on behalf of such organization, company or government agency.

Links


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of each and every web site that collects Personal Information. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this web site.

Requests and Contact


Please contact us about this Privacy Notice or if you have any requests or questions relating to the privacy of your personal information.

Changes to this Privacy Notice


We may revise this Privacy Notice through an updated posting. We will identify the effective date of the revision in the posting. Often, updates are made to provide greater clarity or to comply with changes in regulatory requirements. If the updates involve material changes to the collection, protection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, Pearson will provide notice of the change through a conspicuous notice on this site or other appropriate way. Continued use of the site after the effective date of a posted revision evidences acceptance. Please contact us if you have questions or concerns about the Privacy Notice or any objection to any revisions.

Last Update: November 17, 2020