1
$\begingroup$

I'm currently working on a renderer that tries to minimize the amount of state changes when drawing objects. During each frame the client submits draw instances (the client provides a render state (shader program, vao, vbo) and the vertex offset and count). At the end of each frame the renderer sorts these draw instances by depth and state and generates a list of draw commands (e.g. BindVertexBuffer, UseProgram, DrawArrays). Now my question is, how would I go about handling uniforms in a renderer like this which holds on to all actual gpu communication until the end of the frame.

I have an idea on how to do this using callbacks which would be passed to the renderer when submitting a draw instance. Something like this:

// Called several times by systems during the game loop
renderer.add(program, vbo, VertexPositionColor::getFormat(), 0, 3, [](){
    const GLfloat[4] color = { 1, 0, 0, 1 };
    glUniform4fv(0, color);
});
// Called once at the end of the game loop
renderer.draw(); // sort, generate commands, execute commands

But this seems like a less than optimal approach as it'll most likely trash the icache if there is significant amount of draw instances. Would this be a valid approach? And what are some of the alternatives?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I'd say that the fundamental problem here is your approach. You basically want the outside renderer to throw a bunch of random stuff at the wall, then let the internal rendering system sort it out without having any idea what any of that stuff actually means.

Here's what I mean. Consider the case of skinned meshes vs. unskinned meshes. The internal rendering system has no idea which ones are skinned or not; all it knows is that some draw commands use a particular program and a large UBO/SSBO, while others use a different program and much smaller UBOs.

And that kinda works... to a point. And that point is when you're dealing with state values that are no longer encapsulated in objects.

Uniform values are program state. And you might reasonably have two different objects that use the same program have the same value for that uniform. They might have different values for other uniforms, but there would be different variance in which objects use which values.

But here's the thing: in pretty much every case where this happens, someone knows that it happened. And the code that knows that is the higher level code. After all, if two objects have common programs and common uniform values, they probably have a bunch of other stuff in common too. So odds are good that the higher level code knows when such things would happen.

By using this "throw stuff against the wall" approach, by separating the business end of your renderer from the source of that rendering data, you destroy the semantic information you could have used to detect such things. That is, it is the higher level system that should handle the "sort by state change" part, since it can do a much better job.


However, given that you've effectively designed yourself into a corner, I'd say that the simplest approach is to develop a way to encode uniform values, rather than relying on callbacks.

Uniforms can be scalars, vectors, or matrices (arrays and structs use multiple uniform locations). So you need the equivalent of a "variant" type that can store all of such data, of the types supported by GLSL. And then, for each object, you walk through each uniform location in that object's data block and set that value. Sure, "visitation" is not the most instruction-cache friendly approach, but it's a lot better performing than calling a std::function. At least with visitation, you're executing the same block of code each time.

So what you'd have is a (possibly dynamic) array of uniform data, where each uniform datum is a location, a type, and the variant data. I'll leave the storage optimization of the "variant" as an exercise for the reader.

Generally speaking however, non-block uniform usage should be fairly minimal, dealing only with values that change frequently while rendering with a program. So even in that case, things shouldn't be too bad.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks this is very helpful! Great point about the non-object state values too! I do agree that giving the client more responsibility over the rendering process might be beneficial as they would be able to adapt to each situation more properly. But how would I handle things like depth sorting without having one system that manages/contains all the renderable instances? (the throw-all-things-at-a-wall approach) $\endgroup$ – PhilipMR Sep 21 '17 at 9:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.