Does it make sense to implement own branch prediction optimization in own VM interpreter or it is enough to run VM on hardware that already has branch prediction optimization support?
It could make sense in a limited sense.
For example, in a JIT complier, when generating assembly you may decide to lay out code based on the observed branch probabilities. This only needs a very simple type of predictor that knows the overall probability but doesn't need to recognize any patterns. If you did recognize patterns you could do more sophisticated optimizations, e.g. a loop with an embedded branch that alternates every iteration could be unrolled 2x and the body created efficient for the observed case.
For an interpreter it seems a bit less useful, but one can imagine some sophisticated designs that fuse some adjacent instructions together into a single operation for efficiency and this might benefit from branch prediction. Similarly an interpreter might benefit from recognizing loops.
Apparently you're talking about a VM that interprets bytecode, not hardware virtualization of a CPU.
Implement how? Branch prediction in CPUs is only needed because they're pipelined, and for speculative out-of-order execution.
None of those things make sense for interpreter software if it would create more work to implement. Software pipelining can be worth it for loops over arrays to hide load and ALU latency, especially on older in-order CPUs, but that doesn't increase the total number of instructions to be run. If you don't know for sure what needs to be done next, leave the speculation to hardware OoO exec.
Note that for a pure non-JITing interpreter, control dependencies in the guest code become data dependencies in the interpreter, while a sequence of different instructions in the guest creates a control dependency in the interpreter (to dispatch to handler functions). See How exactly R is affected by Branch Prediction?
You do potentially need to care about branch prediction in the CPU that will run your code. Recently (like Intel since Haswell), CPUs are finally not bad for that, using IT-TAGE predictors: Branch Prediction and the Performance of Interpreters - Don’t Trust Folklore.
You don't implement branch prediction in software, but for older CPUs it was worth tuning interpreters with hardware branch prediction in mind. X86 prefetching optimizations: "computed goto" threaded code has some links, especially an article by Darek Mihocka discussing how badly it sucks for older CPUs (current at the time it was written) to have one "grand central" dispatch branch, like a single switch that every instruction-handler function returns to. That means the entire pattern of which instruction tends to follow which other instruction has to be predicted for that single branch. Without something like IT-TAGE, the prediction state for a single branch is very limited.
Tuning for older CPUs can involve putting dispatch to the next instruction at the end of each handler function, instead of returning to a single dispatch loop. But again, that's not implementing branch prediction, that's tuning for it.
Calculating the solution to an optimization problem takes a 2 GHz CPU one hour. During this process there are no background processes, no RAM is being used and the CPU is at 100% capacity.
Based on this information, can it be derived that a 1 GHz CPU will take two hours to solve the same problem?
A quick search of IPC, frequence, and chip architecture will show you this topic has been breached many times. There are many things that can determine the execution speed of a program (without even going into threading at all) the main ones that pop to mind:
Instruction set - If one chip has an instruction for multiplication, than a*b is atomic. If not, you will need a lot of atomic instructions to perform such an action - big difference in speed, which can prove to make even higher frequency chips slower.
Cycles per second - this is the frequency of the chip.
Instructions per cycle (IPC) - what you are really interested is IPC*frequency, not just frequency. How many atomic actions can you can perform in a second. After the amount of atomic actions (see 1), on a single threaded application this might act as you expect (x2 this => x2 faster program), though no guarantees.
and there are a ton of other nuance technologies that can affect this, like branch prediction which hit the news big time recently. For a complete understanding a book/course might be a better resource.
So, in general, no. If you are comparing two single core, same architecture chips (unlikely), then maybe yes.
I regularly see coder discussions here about CPU usage and questions about reducing 'high usage', covering everything from Javascript functions to compiled C executables.
I notice that almost always people are referring to the percentage of CPU being consumed - which naturally varies hugely according to where the code is running. eg. "When I run this I get 80% CPU usage, so I need to optimise my code".
Whilst it's clear that a level of 'high CPU usage' for looping code is often a good indicator that something is wrong, and code needs to sleep a little or be refactored, I am very surprised not to be able to find a common unit of processing measurement that is used to describe intense CPU usage rather than the percentage of the author's own machine's CPU, for example.
We can easily measure memory/disk usage by an algorithm on a certain platform, but is there any easily attainable and consistent useful figure for an amount of processing that could be used to compare usage?
Are FLOPS still used in the modern world, for instance?
I'm writing a program using JOGL/openCL to utilize the GPU. I have code that kicks in when we work with data sizes which is suppose to detect the available memory on the GPU. If there is insufficient memory on the GPU to process the entire calculation at once it will break the process up into sub process with X number of frames which utilizes less then the max GPU global memory to store.
I had expected that using the maximum possible value of X would give me the largest speed up by minimizing the number of kernels used. Instead I found using a smaller group (X/2 or X/4) gives me better speeds. I'm trying to figure out why breaking the GPU processing into smaller groups rather then having the GPU process the maximum amount it can handle at one time gives me a speed increase; and how I can optimize to figure out what the best value of X is.
My current tests have been running on a GPU kernel which uses very little processing power (both kernels decimate output by selecting part of input and returning it) However, I am fairly certain the same effects occur when I activate all kernels which do a larger degree of processing on the value before returning.
The short answer is, it's complicated. There are many factors at play. These include (but are not limited to):
Amount of local memory you are using.
Amount of private memory you are using.
A limit on the max number of work groups the Symmetric Multiprocessor is able to handle at once.
Exceeding register limits, causing memory access slow-down.
And many more...
I recommend you check out the following link:
http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece498/al/textbook/Chapter5-CudaPerformance.pdf
In particular, check out section 5.3. Dynamic Partitioning of SM Resources. This text is meant to be general purpose, but uses CUDA for its examples. However, the concepts still apply just the same to OpenCL.
This text comes from the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Massively-Parallel-Processors-Hands-/dp/0123814723/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1314279939&sr=8-2
For what its worth, I found this book to be very informative. It will give you a deeper understanding of the hardware that will allow you to answer questions like this.
PCI-e are full duplex bi-directional. i think that means you can write as you read. in which case, if you're doing very little processing, you may be seeing a gain because you're overlappings reads with writes.
consider a total size of N. in one work unit you do:
write N
process N
read N
total time proportional to: process N, transfer 2N
if you split this in two with parallel read/write you can get:
write N/2
process N/2
read N/2 and write N/2
process N/2
read N/2
total time proportional to: process N, transfer 3N/2 (saving N/2 transfer time)
I'm a CS master student, and next semester I will have to start working on my thesis. I've had trouble coming up with a thesis idea, but I decided it will be related to Computer Graphics as I'm passionate about game development and wish to work as a professional game programmer one day.
Unfortunately I'm kinda new to the field of 3D Computer Graphics, I took an undergraduate course on the subject and hope to take an advanced course next semester, and I'm already reading a variety of books and articles to learn more. Still, my supervisor thinks its better if I come up with a general thesis idea now and then spend time learning about it in preparation for doing my thesis proposal. My supervisor has supplied me with some good ideas but I'd rather do something more interesting on my own, which hopefully has to do with games and gives me more opportunities to learn more about the field. I don't care if it's already been done, for me the thesis is more of an opportunity to learn about things in depth and to do substantial work on my own.
I don't know much about GPU programming and I'm still learning about shaders and languages like CUDA. One idea I had is to program an entire game (or as much as possible) on the GPU, including all the game logic, AI, and tests. This is inspired by reading papers on GPGPU and questions like this one I don't know how feasible that is with my knowledge, and my supervisor doesn't know a lot about recent GPUs. I'm sure with time I will be able to answer this question on my own, but it'd be handy if I could know the answer in advance so I could also consider other ideas.
So, if you've got this far, my question: Using only shaders or something like CUDA, can you make a full, simple 3D game that exploits the raw power and parallelism of GPUs? Or am I missing some limitation or difference between GPUs and CPUs that will always make a large portion of my code bound to CPU? I've read about physics engines running on the GPU, so why not everything else?
DISCLAIMER: I've done a PhD, but have never supervised a student of my own, so take all of what I'm about to say with a grain of salt!
I think trying to force as much of a game as possible onto a GPU is a great way to start off your project, but eventually the point of your work should be: "There's this thing that's an important part of many games, but in it's present state doesn't fit well on a GPU: here is how I modified it so it would fit well".
For instance, fortran mentioned that AI algorithms are a problem because they tend to rely on recursion. True, but, this is not necessarily a deal-breaker: the art of converting recursive algorithms into an iterative form is looked upon favorably by the academic community, and would form a nice center-piece for your thesis.
However, as a masters student, you haven't got much time so you would really need to identify the kernel of interest very quickly. I would not bother trying to get the whole game to actually fit onto the GPU as part of the outcome of your masters: I would treat it as an exercise just to see which part won't fit, and then focus on that part alone.
But be careful with your choice of supervisor. If your supervisor doesn't have any relevant experience, you should pick someone else who does.
I'm still waiting for a Gameboy Emulator that runs entirely on the GPU, which is just fed the game ROM itself and current user input and results in a texture displaying the game - maybe a second texture for sound output :)
The main problem is that you can't access persistent storage, user input or audio output from a GPU. These parts have to be on the CPU, by definition (even though cards with HDMI have audio output, but I think you can't control it from the GPU). Apart from that, you can already push large parts of the game code into the GPU, but I think it's not enough for a 3D game, since someone has to feed the 3D data into the GPU and tell it which shaders should apply to which part. You can't really randomly access data on the GPU or run arbitrary code, someone has to do the setup.
Some time ago, you would just setup a texture with the source data, a render target for the result data, and a pixel shader that would do the transformation. Then you rendered a quad with the shader to the render target, which would perform the calculations, and then read the texture back (or use it for further rendering). Today, things have been made simpler by the fourth and fifth generation of shaders (Shader Model 4.0 and whatever is in DirectX 11), so you can have larger shaders and access memory more easily. But still they have to be setup from the outside, and I don't know how things are today regarding keeping data between frames. In worst case, the CPU has to read back from the GPU and push again to retain game data, which is always a slow thing to do. But if you can really get to a point where a single generic setup/rendering cycle would be sufficient for your game to run, you could say that the game runs on the GPU. The code would be quite different from normal game code, though. Most of the performance of GPUs comes from the fact that they execute the same program in hundreds or even thousands of parallel shading units, and you can't just write a shader that can draw an image to a certain position. A pixel shader always runs, by definition, on one pixel, and the other shaders can do things on arbitrary coordinates, but they don't deal with pixels. It won't be easy, I guess.
I'd suggest just trying out the points I said. The most important is retaining state between frames, in my opinion, because if you can't retain all data, all is impossible.
First, Im not a computer engineer so my assumptions cannot even be a grain of salt, maybe nano scale.
Artificial intelligence? No problem.There are countless neural network examples running in parallel in google. Example: http://www.heatonresearch.com/encog
Pathfinding? You just try some parallel pathfinding algorithms that are already on internet. Just one of them: https://graphics.tudelft.nl/Publications-new/2012/BB12a/BB12a.pdf
Drawing? Use interoperability of dx or gl with cuda or cl so drawing doesnt cross pci-e lane. Can even do raytracing at corners so no z-fighting anymore, even going pure raytraced screen is doable with mainstream gpu using a low depth limit.
Physics? The easiest part, just iterate a simple Euler or Verlet integration and frequently stability checks if order of error is big.
Map/terrain generation? You just need a Mersenne-twister and a triangulator.
Save game? Sure, you can compress the data parallelly before writing to a buffer. Then a scheduler writes that data piece by piece to HDD through DMA so no lag.
Recursion? Write your own stack algorithm using main vram, not local memory so other kernels can run in wavefronts and GPU occupation is better.
Too much integer needed? You can cast to a float then do 50-100 calcs using all cores then cast the result back to integer.
Too much branching? Compute both cases if they are simple, so every core is in line and finish in sync. If not, then you can just put a branch predictor of yourself so the next time, it predicts better than the hardware(could it be?) with your own genuine algorithm.
Too much memory needed? You can add another GPU to system and open DMA channel or a CF/SLI for faster communication.
Hardest part in my opinion is the object oriented design since it is very weird and hardware dependent to build pseudo objects in gpu. Objects should be represented in host(cpu) memory but they must be separated over many arrays in gpu to be efficient. Example objects in host memory: orc1xy_orc2xy_orc3xy. Example objects in gpu memory: orc1_x__orc2_x__ ... orc1_y__orc2_y__ ...
The answer has already been chosen 6 years ago but for those interested to the actual question, Shadertoy, a live-coding WebGL platform, recently added the "multipass" feature allowing preservation of state.
Here's a live demo of the Bricks game running on Gpu.
I don't care if it's already been
done, for me the thesis is more of an
opportunity to learn about things in
depth and to do substantial work on my
own.
Then your idea of what a thesis is is completely wrong. A thesis must be an original research. --> edit: I was thinking about a PhD thesis, not a master thesis ^_^
About your question, the GPU's instruction sets and capabilities are very specific to vector floating point operations. The game logic usually does little floating point, and much logic (branches and decision trees).
If you take a look to the CUDA wikipedia page you will see:
It uses a recursion-free,
function-pointer-free subset of the C
language
So forget about implementing any AI algorithms there, that are essentially recursive (like A* for pathfinding). Maybe you could simulate the recursion with stacks, but if it's not allowed explicitly it should be for a reason. Not having function pointers also limits somewhat the ability to use dispatch tables for handling the different actions depending on state of the game (you could use again chained if-else constructions, but something smells bad there).
Those limitations in the language reflect that the underlying HW is mostly thought to do streaming processing tasks. Of course there are workarounds (stacks, chained if-else), and you could theoretically implement almost any algorithm there, but they will probably make the performance suck a lot.
The other point is about handling the IO, as already mentioned up there, this is a task for the main CPU (because it is the one that executes the OS).
It is viable to do a masters thesis on a subject and with tools that you are, when you begin, unfamiliar. However, its a big chance to take!
Of course a masters thesis should be fun. But ultimately, its imperative that you pass with distinction and that might mean tackling a difficult subject that you have already mastered.
Equally important is your supervisor. Its imperative that you tackle some problem they show an interest in - that they are themselves familiar with - so that they can become interested in helping you get a great grade.
You've had lots of hobby time for scratching itches, you'll have lots more hobby time in the future too no doubt. But master thesis time is not the time for hobbies unfortunately.
Whilst GPUs today have got some immense computational power, they are, regardless of things like CUDA and OpenCL limited to a restricted set of uses, whereas the CPU is more suited towards computing general things, with extensions like SSE to speed up specific common tasks. If I'm not mistaken, some GPUs have the inability to do a division of two floating point integers in hardware. Certainly things have improved greatly compared to 5 years ago.
It'd be impossible to develop a game to run entirely in a GPU - it would need the CPU at some stage to execute something, however making a GPU perform more than just the graphics (and physics even) of a game would certainly be interesting, with the catch that game developers for PC have the biggest issue of having to contend with a variety of machine specification, and thus have to restrict themselves to incorporating backwards compatibility, complicating things. The architecture of a system will be a crucial issue - for example the Playstation 3 has the ability to do multi gigabytes a second of throughput between the CPU and RAM, GPU and Video RAM, however the CPU accessing GPU memory peaks out just past 12MiB/s.
The approach you may be looking for is called "GPGPU" for "General Purpose GPU". Good starting points may be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPGPU
http://gpgpu.org/
Rumors about spectacular successes in this approach have been around for a few years now, but I suspect that this will become everyday practice in a few years (unless CPU architectures change a lot, and make it obsolete).
The key here is parallelism: if you have a problem where you need a large number of parallel processing units. Thus, maybe neural networks or genetic algorithms may be a good range of problems to attack with the power of a GPU. Maybe also looking for vulnerabilities in cryptographic hashes (cracking the DES on a GPU would make a nice thesis, I imagine :)). But problems requiring high-speed serial processing don't seem so much suited for the GPU. So emulating a GameBoy may be out of scope. (But emulating a cluster of low-power machines might be considered.)
I would think a project dealing with a game architecture that targets multiple core CPUs and GPUs would be interesting. I think this is still an area where a lot of work is being done. In order to take advantage of current and future computer hardware, new game architectures are going to be needed. I went to GDC 2008 and there were ome talks related to this. Gamebryo had an interesting approach where they create threads for processing computations. You can designate the number of cores you want to use so that if you don't starve out other libraries that might be multi-core. I imagine the computations could be targeted to GPUs as well.
Other approaches included targeting different systems for different cores so that computations could be done in parallel. For instance, the first split a talk suggested was to put the renderer on its own core and the rest of the game on another. There are other more complex techniques but it all basically boils down to how do you get the data around to the different cores.