• 12
• 12
• 9
• 10
• 13

# How do you manage object pools in your engine/game?

This topic is 1275 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

I would like to know how do you manage object pools in your engines/games and how do you access them. I have some ideas:

1. For each entity manually add a static member that will be the ObjectPool managing this entity type. One problem here is how and when the pool should be inited. In my egine almost all objects initialization are made in an init() method that is called after construction. So I would have to init the static instance somehow.

2. Have a Pool Manager acting like something like a Plugable Factory where entities are registered and a Pool are created for this entity type. Something like this:

    PoolManager.RegisterEntity<Ogre>(preAllocationCount, maxSize);
PoolManager.RegisterEntity<Orc>(preAllocationCount, maxSize);
Ogre* ogre=PoolManager.Create<Ogre>();
ogre->init(...);
PoolManager.Delete(ogre);


Don't know if this is something overengeniered. But seems something I like because transfer the entity creation to just a system in the game. The PoolManager.

What do you think? Could you expose more ideas around this subject?

##### Share on other sites

I like to keep things simple and use the new and delete operators most of the time and don't worry that much about allocation. I'm confident that the implementation of new/delete doesn't do anything terribly stupid and that I would have to work really hard to do something better performance-wise. If I need to track objects I put them into an std::vector or sometimes a std::map. There are some cases where I have groups of large numbers of very small objects, and for those I instead use the operator new[] and delete[].

##### Share on other sites

Hi,

Thanks for the answer. Well with this aproach moving to a simple placement new will improve performance greatly. Let's here some more options ;).

Cheers.

##### Share on other sites

Option two, there is no need to store extra member variables inside the object and it seems easier to maintain. Having it as a fully separated system makes it easier to benchmark and/or build usage stats without having to link unrelated system together. I use something similar to keep objects of the same type in a coherent chunk of memory to make looping over them cache friendly.

As to new and delete they usually use mallac and free, both are know to slow down when they start fighting memory defragmentation. So if your code allocates and destroys a lot of objects, gets used in long game sessions or some sort of server you might start running in to performance issues (random time spikes) when creating/destroying objects.  When people talk about object pools they usually need them to avoid those random spikes to gain more stable frame times.

Edit: Memory defrag is not the only reason new/delete and malloc/free have unreliable timing, there are some platform depended reasons as well.

Edited by Nemo Persona

##### Share on other sites

Option two, there is no need to store extra member variables inside the object and it seems easier to mentain. Having it as a fully seperated system makes it easyer to benchmark and/or build useage stats without having to link unrelated system together. I use something similair to keep objects of the same type in a coherent chunk of memory to make looping over them more cache friendly.

As to new and delete they usualy use mallac and free, both are know to slow down when they start fighting memory defragmentation. So if your code allocates and destroys alot of objects, gets used in long game sessions or some sort of server you might start running in to performance isseus (random time spikes) when creating/destroying objects.  When people talk about object pools they usualy need them to avoide those random spikes to gain more stable frame times.

I'm inclined to move that to an external system instead of putting in the related class type.

Could you explain a bit how your system work? I was thinking about implementing something simple based on std::vector. I mean allocating for example vectors of 10 or 20 objects on demand. This way I would not  get too deep into this difficult subject and would get rid of reallocation problems ivalidating all previously created pointers.

Cheers.

##### Share on other sites

What Nemo Persona says, constantly newing and deleting objects is a bad idea if your game should be running for a longer period of time. Each new usually translates into a context switch from application/user mode into kernel mode for the OS, which then needs to allocate the requested amount of memory, and then switch back to user mode, which might take a long time depending on fragmentation and platform specifics.

ObjectPools are usually used to avoid new and delete for most of your use cases. You allocate a large memory buffer (either with new or malloc), and then manually hand out that memory to the rest of your application. That way you limit yourself to a low number of memory allocations, and instead only care about memory initialization (with placement new, for example).

The simplest way to make an ObjectPool is to use a vector for your planned type (i.e. std::vector<Ogre>), make a simple wrapper class that tracks which indices were "allocated" (more like requested to be used), and that's it. If you know for sure you will never need more than X amound of your objects, you can even just use an array (Ogre[1000]), and keep the same wrapper interface, without the user of that interface being none the wiser, except the fact that it won't be able to allocate more than 1000 Ogres.

##### Share on other sites

What Nemo Persona says, constantly newing and deleting objects is a bad idea if your game should be running for a longer period of time. Each new usually translates into a context switch from application/user mode into kernel mode for the OS, which then needs to allocate the requested amount of memory, and then switch back to user mode, which might take a long time depending on fragmentation and platform specifics.

ObjectPools are usually used to avoid new and delete for most of your use cases. You allocate a large memory buffer (either with new or malloc), and then manually hand out that memory to the rest of your application. That way you limit yourself to a low number of memory allocations, and instead only care about memory initialization (with placement new, for example).

The simplest way to make an ObjectPool is to use a vector for your planned type (i.e. std::vector<Ogre>), make a simple wrapper class that tracks which indices were "allocated" (more like requested to be used), and that's it. If you know for sure you will never need more than X amound of your objects, you can even just use an array (Ogre[1000]), and keep the same wrapper interface, without the user of that interface being none the wiser, except the fact that it won't be able to allocate more than 1000 Ogres.

More or less this is the way I was explaining. The problem with a single vector is reallocation handling. This is why I suggested to use an array of pools. This way reallocs of vectors won't be proced.

Cheers.

##### Share on other sites

We have multiple memory pools knocking about, it's something I am very familiar with as it often goes wrong when people don't use it properly, but a good memory pool system can speed up your game massively.

To give you a few examples.

INCREDIBLY DANAGEROUS!!!  but incredibly fast.

We use a scratchpad when we just need a block of memory within a subroutine. an example pseudo code would be

void init(int size)
{
base = maloc(size);
}

void * alloc(size)
{
oldptr = base;
base+=size;
return oldptr;
}

void free(int size)
{
base-=size;
}


You can see why it is so dangerous

Used correctly it is about as fast as you can get.

Simple pool

A simple pool is much safer, but can suffer from fragmentation.  It is a double linked list of memory fragments.

This produces an overhead on each memory allocation, you attach a header to each allocation. So each alloc consumes requested memory + header size bytes of memory.

When you free a block of memory, you look at the last and next blocks. If either of those is free you join this allocation to it... kind of hard to explain.

I'll try a diagram. F is a free block, A is an allocated block. So if you start off with this structure

A1 A2 F1 A3 A4 F2

Then free A2 you end up with F1 growing into the newly available space and end up with this structure

A1 F1 A3 A4 F2

If you then free A3 , F1 grows again... in the other direction

A1 F1 A4 F2

Finally freeing A4 not only grows F1 a third time, but merges F1 and F2

A1 F1

The last type of allocator we typically use is a block based system. This is used when we know we would get fragmentation and we have a good idea of the size of each allocation

We just allocate an array of blocks of memory and mark them as free. When you ask for an allocation you are just given the first free one.

This can never fragment, and is very fast, but it is also very wasteful. Say you decide that 4K is a valid block size, every block will be 4K, so if you only need 3K , you have wasted 1K of ram.

This is just a walk through of the basic structure of the sorts of memory allocators we use and why, as usual the real world code gets more complex. Fallbacks, error handling, and a million other things that people add because they had a bug and made it general case instead of situational... but that's lfe I guess.

Hope this helps you come up with a plan.

##### Share on other sites

What Nemo Persona says, constantly newing and deleting objects is a bad idea if your game should be running for a longer period of time. Each new usually translates into a context switch from application/user mode into kernel mode for the OS, which then needs to allocate the requested amount of memory, and then switch back to user mode, which might take a long time depending on fragmentation and platform specifics.

ObjectPools are usually used to avoid new and delete for most of your use cases. You allocate a large memory buffer (either with new or malloc), and then manually hand out that memory to the rest of your application. That way you limit yourself to a low number of memory allocations, and instead only care about memory initialization (with placement new, for example).

The simplest way to make an ObjectPool is to use a vector for your planned type (i.e. std::vector<Ogre>), make a simple wrapper class that tracks which indices were "allocated" (more like requested to be used), and that's it. If you know for sure you will never need more than X amound of your objects, you can even just use an array (Ogre[1000]), and keep the same wrapper interface, without the user of that interface being none the wiser, except the fact that it won't be able to allocate more than 1000 Ogres.

More or less this is the way I was explaining. The problem with a single vector is reallocation handling. This is why I suggested to use an array of pools. This way reallocs of vectors won't be proced.

Cheers.

You should note that if you reference the objects in the pool by index within the vector, than you don't need to care about the vector moving the data around in memory. This is the strength of indices, with the small drawback of one additional indirection to actually get the data.

And the usage of these pools should also be as simple as possible. If you need a pool for Ogres, make an instance if ObjectPool<Ogre> m_ogrePool in your game class, or some other logical place. Don't make the pools static, nor singletons, as you lock yourself from being able to make different pools for different levels or maps.

##### Share on other sites

Could you explain a bit how your system work?

My object pool allocates a data block using malloc(sizeof(Type) * count) and then it uses the return pointer as a standard array or objects. Using malloc avoids the constructor calls, sins you are working with a object pool you usually implement init/create/delete methods to reset the object and that makes the constructor/destructor obsolete in most cases.

As for invalidating pointers, keeping the memory block coherent does invalidate them but sins I'm using a data oriented design I don't rely on the pointer as a id to a object. To id specific objects every object pool has a secondary array with id's that is kept in sync with the data array, kinda like a key value pair. This works because I almost never access the 'objects' based on there id due to the data oriented design, if you do access objects based on id the look ups would be to slow.

As mentioned before std::vector reallocate objects and invalidate pointers as well, you can get around this by using a vector of pointers to objects, std::vector<Object*> will do the trick and keep things simple.

ps. damm spell checker why you disabled >.<

Edited by Nemo Persona