• 06/17/13 05:32 PM
    Sign in to follow this  

    Useless Snippet #1: Transform Vec3f by Matrix4x4f

    General and Gameplay Programming

    HellRaiZer
    This is a rewrite of an old blog post I wrote a couple of years back. Finally, I found some time to redo the performance tests based on an observation made by Sean Barrett on the original post. The code below remains the same. The difference lies in the way performance is measured. Here I use RDTSC instead of Intel's Performance Counter Monitor library, which ended up producing a high overhead compared to the actual time taken by the measured functions. As an added bonus, I'm uploading a small VS project for anyone interested to try out.

    The problem

    Goal Multiply a batch of Vector3f's with the same 4x4 matrix. Restrictions
    • 'src' and 'dst' arrays shouldn't point to the same memory location
    • All pointers should be 16-byte aligned (see below for details on array sizes)
    • Treat Vector3f's as positions (w = 1.0)
    • Matrix is column major

    Structs and helper functions

    struct _Vector3f { float x, y, z; }; struct _Vector4f { float x, y, z, w; }; _Vector3f* AllocateSrcArray(unsigned int numVertices) { // We are loading 3 xmm regs per loop. So we need numLoops * 12 floats, where // numLoops is (numVertices / 4) + 1 for the SSE version unsigned int memSize = sizeof(float) * ((numVertices >> 2) + 1) * 12; return (_Vector3f*)_aligned_malloc(memSize, 16); } _Vector4f* AllocateDstArray(unsigned int numVertices) { unsigned int memSize = sizeof(_Vector4f) * (((numVertices >> 2) + 1) << 2); return (_Vector4f*)_aligned_malloc(memSize, 16); } As you can see, we are wasting a bit or memory in order to avoid dealing with special cases in the SSE version. The C version isn't affected by the extra padding, so there is no overhead. The worst case scenario (numVertices = 4 * n + 1) is to allocate an extra 48 bytes for the 'dst' array and extra 4 bytes for the 'src' array (total = 52 bytes). Nothing extraordinary when dealing with large batches of vertices. Code-side, the worst case is to perform 3 extra stores to the 'dst' array and 3 extra loads from the 'src' array. Also note that we don't impose any restrictions on the matrix values, so the result of each transformation should be a 4-element vector.

    C code

    void TransformVec3Pos_C(_Vector3f* __restrict src, _Vector4f* __restrict dst, unsigned int numVertices, float* __restrict matrix4x4) { for(unsigned int iVertex = 0;iVertex < numVertices;++iVertex) { _Vector3f* s = &src[iVertex]; _Vector4f* d = &dst[iVertex]; d->x = matrix4x4[0] * s->x + matrix4x4[4] * s->y + matrix4x4[ 8] * s->z + matrix4x4[12]; d->y = matrix4x4[1] * s->x + matrix4x4[5] * s->y + matrix4x4[ 9] * s->z + matrix4x4[13]; d->z = matrix4x4[2] * s->x + matrix4x4[6] * s->y + matrix4x4[10] * s->z + matrix4x4[14]; d->w = matrix4x4[3] * s->x + matrix4x4[7] * s->y + matrix4x4[11] * s->z + matrix4x4[15]; } } Performance (8k vertices): ~19 cycles/vertex (?: 1.4) There is nothing special with this code. Straight Vec3/Matrix4x4 multiply. Plain-old FPU code generated by the compiler. Note: Turning on /arch:SSE compiler option doesn't seem to produce any SSE code for the above function. The compiler insisted on using the FPU for all the calculations. Using /arch:SSE2 compiler option ended up producing a lot of SSE2 double-to-float and float-to-double conversions, which in turn made things worse performance-wise.

    SSE Optimized

    The code below process 4 vertices at a time. 4 vertices * 3 floats/vertex = 12 floats = 3 loads of 4 floats per loop First load = (x0, y0, z0, x1) Second load = (y1, z1, x2, y2) Third load = (z2, x3, y3, z3) We don't keep the matrix in xmm regs in order to avoid intermediate stores (profiling says this is good). What we do is try to keep the matrix loads to a minimum by reusing each column as much as possible (see comment in code). Hopefully it should be in cache most of the time. Written in asm because I couldn't find a way to force the compiler to generate the code below using intrisics. The compiler insisted on using the stack for intermediate stores (matrix columns). void TrasnformVec3Pos_SSE_Asm(_Vector3f* __restrict src, _Vector4f* __restrict dst, unsigned int numVertices, float* __restrict matrix) { __asm { // Calculate the total number of iterations... mov ecx, [numVertices]; shr ecx, 0x02; inc ecx; // ecx = totalIterations = (numVertices >> 2) + 1; xor esi, esi; // esi = iIter = 0; mov eax, [src]; // eax = &src[0]; mov edx, [dst]; // edx = &dst[0]; mov edi, [matrix]; // edi = &matrix[0]; _LoopStart: // Matrix column 0 is being loaded 2 times. // Matrix column 1 is being loaded 2 times. // Matrix column 2 is being loaded 1 time. // Matrix column 3 is being loaded 1 time. // Other that the above extra memory loads, each vector is loaded once, // and there aren't any intermediate stores. prefetcht0 [eax + 0x100]; movaps xmm0, [eax]; // xmm0 = (x0, y0, z0, x1) movaps xmm1, [edi]; // xmm1 = (m0, m1, m2, m3) << Matrix.Column[0] movaps xmm2, xmm0; // xmm2 = (x0, y0, z0, x1) movaps xmm3, xmm0; // xmm3 = (x0, y0, z0, x1) shufps xmm2, xmm2, 0x00; // xmm2 = (x0, x0, x0, x0) prefetcht0 [edx + 0x80]; shufps xmm3, xmm3, 0xFF; // xmm3 = (x1, x1, x1, x1) mulps xmm2, xmm1; // xmm2 = (x0 * m0, x0 * m1, x0 * m2, x0 * m3) mulps xmm3, xmm1; // xmm3 = (x1 * m0, x1 * m1, x1 * m2, x1 * m3) movaps xmm4, xmm0; // xmm4 = (x0, y0, z0, x1) movaps xmm1, [edi + 0x10]; // xmm1 = (m4, m5, m6, m7) << Matrix.Column[1] shufps xmm4, xmm4, 0x55; // xmm4 = (y0, y0, y0, y0) shufps xmm0, xmm0, 0xAA; // xmm0 = (z0, z0, z0, z0) mulps xmm4, xmm1; // xmm4 = (y0 * m4, y0 * m5, y0 * m6, y0 * m7) movaps xmm5, [eax + 0x10]; // xmm5 = (y1, z1, x2, y2) addps xmm2, xmm4; // xmm2 = (x0 * m0 + y0 * m4, x0 * m1 + y0 * m5, x0 * m2 + y0 * m6, x0 * m3 + y0 * m7) movaps xmm6, xmm5; // xmm6 = (y1, z1, x2, y2) movaps xmm4, [edi + 0x20]; // xmm4 = (m8, m9, m10, m11) << Matrix.Column[2] shufps xmm6, xmm6, 0x00; // xmm6 = (y1, y1, y1, y1) mulps xmm0, xmm4; // xmm0 = (z0 * m8, z0 * m9, z0 * m10, z0 * m11) mulps xmm6, xmm1; // xmm6 = (y1 * m4, y1 * m5, y1 * m6, y1 * m7) addps xmm0, xmm2; // xmm0 = (x0 * m0 + y0 * m4 + z0 * m8, x0 * m1 + y0 * m5 + z0 * m9, x0 * m2 + y0 * m6 + z0 * m10, x0 * m3 + y0 * m7 + z0 * m11) addps xmm3, xmm6; // xmm3 = (x1 * m0 + y1 * m4, x1 * m1 + y1 * m5, x1 * m2 + y1 * m6, x1 * m3 + y1 * m7) movaps xmm2, xmm5; // xmm2 = (y1, z1, x2, y2) movaps xmm6, xmm5; // xmm6 = (y1, z1, x2, y2) shufps xmm2, xmm2, 0x55; // xmm2 = (z1, z1, z1, z1) shufps xmm6, xmm6, 0xFF; // xmm6 = (y2, y2, y2, y2) mulps xmm2, xmm4; // xmm2 = (z1 * m8, z1 * m9, z1 * m10, z1 * m11) mulps xmm6, xmm1; // xmm6 = (y2 * m4, y2 * m5, y2 * m6, y2 * m7) addps xmm2, xmm3; // xmm2 = (x1 * m0 + y1 * m4 + z1 * m8, x1 * m1 + y1 * m5 + z1 * m9, x1 * m2 + y1 * m6 + z1 * m10, x1 * m3 + y1 * m7 + z1 * m11) movaps xmm1, [edi]; // xmm1 = (m0, m1, m2, m3) << Matrix.Column[0] shufps xmm5, xmm5, 0xAA; // xmm5 = (x2, x2, x2, x2) movaps xmm3, [eax + 0x20]; // xmm3 = (z2, x3, y3, z3) mulps xmm5, xmm1; // xmm5 = (x2 * m0, x2 * m1, x2 * m2, x2 * m3) movaps xmm7, xmm3; // xmm7 = (z2, x3, y3, z3) addps xmm6, xmm5; // xmm6 = (x2 * m0 + y2 * m4, x2 * m1 + y2 * m5, x2 * m2 + y2 * m6, x2 * m3 + y2 * m7) shufps xmm7, xmm7, 0x00; // xmm7 = (z2, z2, z2, z2) movaps xmm5, xmm3; // xmm5 = (z2, x3, y3, z3) mulps xmm7, xmm4; // xmm7 = (z2 * m8, z2 * m9, z2 * m10, z2 * m11) shufps xmm5, xmm5, 0x55; // xmm5 = (x3, x3, x3, x3) addps xmm6, xmm7; // xmm6 = (x2 * m0 + y2 * m4 + z2 * m8, x2 * m1 + y2 * m5 + z1 * m9, x2 * m2 + y2 * m6 + z2 * m10, x2 * m3 + y2 * m7 + z2 * m11) mulps xmm5, xmm1; // xmm5 = (x3 * m0, x3 * m1, x3 * m2, x3 * m3) movaps xmm7, [edi + 0x30]; // xmm7 = (m12, m13, m14, m15) << Matrix.Column[3] movaps xmm1, [edi + 0x10]; // xmm1 = (m4, m5, m6, m7) << Matrix.Column[1] add eax, 0x30; addps xmm0, xmm7; // xmm0 = d0 addps xmm2, xmm7; // xmm2 = d1 addps xmm6, xmm7; // xmm6 = d2 addps xmm5, xmm7; // xmm5 = (x3 * m0 + m12, x3 * m1 + m13, x3 * m2 + m14, x3 * m3 + m15) movaps [edx], xmm0; // dst = xmm0 movaps xmm7, xmm3; // xmm7 = (z2, x3, y3, z3) movaps [edx + 0x10], xmm2; // dst[i + 1] = xmm2 shufps xmm7, xmm7, 0xAA; // xmm7 = (y3, y3, y3, y3) shufps xmm3, xmm3, 0xFF; // xmm3 = (z3, z3, z3, z3) mulps xmm7, xmm1; // xmm7 = (y3 * m4, y3 * m5, y3 * m6, y3 * m7) mulps xmm3, xmm4; // xmm3 = (z3 * m8, z3 * m9, z3 * m10, z3 * m11) addps xmm5, xmm7; // xmm5 = (x3 * m0 + y3 * m4 + m12, x3 * m1 + y3 * m5 + m13, x3 * m2 + y3 * m6 + m14, x3 * m3 + y3 * m7 + m15) movaps [edx + 0x20], xmm6; // dst[i + 2] = xmm6 addps xmm5, xmm3; // xmm5 = d3 add edx, 0x40; inc esi; cmp esi, ecx; movaps [edx - 0x10], xmm5; // dst[i + 3] = xmm5 jb _LoopStart; } } Performance (8k vertices): ~7 cycles/vertex (?: 0.15)

    Comparison

    In order to compare the functions above, we execute 100,000 iterations for each batch size and calculate the clock cycles taken for each one of them. The results are then sorted and the middle 50,000 iterations are used to calculate the average and standard deviation. All values are in cycles/vertex
    Batchsize(vertices)CSSESpeedup
    12824.3(s=0.98)13.8(s=0.48)1.76x
    25621.5(s=1.86)12.8(s=0.36)1.67x
    51219.5(s=1.71)8.8(s=0.2)2.21x
    102418.6(s=1.23)8.3(s=0.26)2.24x
    409618.9(s=1.29)7.8(s=0.13)2.42x
    819218.8(s=1.43)7.1(s=0.15)2.64x
    6553620.4(s=1.53)8.2(s=0.34)2.48x
    Table: Comparison between the two methods and speedup (values are averages between several independent runs) The stages of optimization aren't present because I don't have the code anymore. Next time, I'll keep it around. One thing observed is that even the most naive SSE implementation (loading individual vertex components (movss) and processing only one vertex per loop) gives significant speedups compared to the FPU (C) implementation. All timings have been measured using RDTSC. All tests have been executed on Core i7 740QM using Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 compiler. The process' and thread's affinity has been set to 0x01 (the thread runs on the 1st core only) and the thread's priority has been set to highest. If you happen to test the code above, please share your findings. Corrections are always welcome. Thanks for reading.


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Create an account or sign in to leave a review

    You need to be a member in order to leave a review

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now


    Ectara

    Report ·

      

    Share this review


    Link to review