I have built my game in server mode on Mac OS and attached profiler to it. In profiler I can see unreasonable high cpu load.
Other scripts take a lot of cpu time. How can this be optimized?
Vsync takes a lot of time otherwise. How can it be since I have disabled VSync, built as server, run with -nographics and even removed cameras and UI?
I dont know what your game is doing in terms of calculations from custom scripts, but if its not just an empty project, then i dont see why 33ms is unreasonable. Check your servers specs maybe? Also VSync just idles for a need amount of time to reach the fixed target FPS, meaning its not actually under load, even though the profiler is showing it as a big lump of color. Think of it more as headroom - how much processing you can still do per frame and have your target FPS.
Related
I have windowed WinApi/OpenGL app. Scene is drawn rarely (compared to games) in WM_PAINT, mostly triggered by user input - MW_MOUSEMOVE/clicks etc.
I noticed, that when there is no scene moving by user mouse (application "idle") and then some mouse action by user starts, the first frame is drawn with unpleasant delay - like 300 ms. Following frames are fast again.
I implemented 100 ms timer, which only does InvalidateRect, which is later followed by WM_PAINT/draw scene. This "fixed" the problem. But I don't like this solution.
I'd like know why is this happening and also some tips how to tackle it.
Does OpenGL render context save resources, when not used? Or could this be caused by some system behaviour, like processor underclocking/energy saving etc? (Although I noticed that processor runs underclocked even when app under "load")
This sounds like Windows virtual memory system at work. The sum of all the memory use of all active programs is usually greater than the amount of physical memory installed on your system. So windows swaps out idle processes to disc, according to whatever rules it follows, such as the relative priority of each process and the amount of time it is idle.
You are preventing the swap out (and delay) by artificially making the program active every 100ms.
If a swapped out process is reactivated, it takes a little time to retrieve the memory content from disc and restart the process.
Its unlikely that OpenGL is responsible for this delay.
You can improve the situation by starting your program with a higher priority.
https://superuser.com/questions/699651/start-process-in-high-priority
You can also use the virtuallock function to prevent Windows from swapping out part of the memory, but not advisable unless you REALLY know what you are doing!
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366895(v=vs.85).aspx
EDIT: You can improve things for sure by adding more memory and for sure 4GB sounds low for a modern PC, especially if you Chrome with multiple tabs open.
If you want to be scientific before spending any hard earned cash :-), then open Performance Manager and look at Cache Faults/Sec. This will show the swap activity on your machine. (I have 16GB on my PC so this number is very low mostly). To make sure you learn, I would check Cache Faults/Sec before and after the memory upgrade - so you can quantify the difference!
Finally, there is nothing wrong with the solution you found already - to kick start the graphic app every 100ms or so.....
Problem was in NVidia driver global 3d setting -"Power management mode".
Options "Optimal Power" and "Adaptive" save power and cause the problem.
Only "Prefer Maximum Performance" does the right thing.
Short Version:
Before the TL;DR section, my main question is this, what is difference when building to profile using instruments then a regular build that would result in reduced CPU load of my app by over 200%?
When building to run, it uses well over 200% CPU as reported by activity monitor, but with everything else the same, when building for profiling, using the Time Profiler, it reduces the CPU load down to <5%, which is a dramatic (orders of magnitude) difference.
TL;DR Version:
As an exercise to learn Cocoa, Swift and DSP (yes all three at once), I am working on writing a simple radio scanner OS X application using the cheap rtl-sdr dongles.
I have written a simple Swift wrapper around librtlsdr, a simple UI to be able to set the frequency, and a couple of simple DSP routines. My wrapper around librtlsdr uses an NSOperationQueue and my DSP routines use GCD queues in order to move the IO and CPU intense routines off the main thread / queue.
Currently, everything is working to the extent that I can successfully demodulate an AM transmission.
I have implemented a simple low-pass FIR filter and while working on the algorithm, I was surprised when I realized that I couldn’t use much more than about 30 coefficients before my filter routine started taking too long and the audio became choppy. As well, Activity Monitor shows up to 300% CPU usage for my app, which seems crazy high considering my filter contains nothing but a nested loop to do some multiply and accumulate operations. Anything higher than about 40 coefficients and the UI becomes unresponsive.
For the DSP minded, it’s a decimating filter where I am using the entire sample set for filtering (960000 sps) , but only filtering the samples that I need for the rate reduction (48000), using a rectangular windowed sinc function for the coefficients, pre computed. Not the most efficient algorithm, but on my quad core i7 Macbook Pro and iMac, it should still scream.
To get some insight on where my program was using up all the CPU cycles, I decided to give Instruments a go. Product->Profile, choosing the Time Profiler and running my app gave my some interesting information.
1) My filter routine was NOT using the most CPU cycles.
2) Activity monitor showed that my app wasn’t even at 5% CPU usage
So I decided to find out how far I can stress things before I see any stress on the CPU and I was up to a 50,000 tap filter before it started to be noticeably choppy and the CPU usage went close to 300%. So… to recap, normal build and run, I max out at about 35-40 filter taps; profile build and run, I max out at about 50,000 filter taps.
Also worthy of note, while profiling with 50,000 filter taps, the UI still responds instantly and I can change frequency, start / stop the radio and it has choppy audio. During a normal run, the UI starts to freeze just as soon as I start the radio with no audio, and that happens after I get to only about 50 taps.
Again, why the dramatic difference in CPU usage between between running while profiling, and running just a standard build; what’s different aside from the elevated privileges for Instruments and what do I need to do to make it the normal behavior for my app?
JE
This is all about build configurations. When you profile an app with Xcode it gets built with optimizations because Xcode uses the "release" build configuration for profiling. As the name suggests, the "release" config is also used on your final product which therefore always is a build optimized for speed. The default "debug" build configuration which comes to play when you build your app in Xcode by pressing ⌘R doesn't apply any compiler optimizations. This is the reason why your app is slower when not being profiled.
You can learn more about build configurations here: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/recipes/xcode_help-project_editor/Articles/BasingBuildConfigurationsonConfigurationFiles.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40010155-CH13-SW1
Look at the those peaks in the first graph, which factor can cause this?
cpu 24X6
There's a lot of stuff going on in any general purpose computer. When I performance profiled apps in a former life, I saw this all the time and factored it out.
It's caused by a whole host of sources: Processor dealing with interrupts, some disk maintenance routine, file system clean up, completely useless background apps that have been installed unknown to you as automatically launched services, etc.
Your plot of idle time is a little disconcerting. It is awfully low. What apps do you have running taking up all that processing? Also, if your memory is low, say because you have 20 or 30 browser tabs/windows open, your CPU load will go through the roof due to all that page and context swapping.
There are plenty of examples in Windows of applications triggering code at fairly high and stable framerates without spiking the CPU.
WPF/Silverlight/WinRT applications can do this, for example. So can browsers and media players. How exactly do they do this, and what API calls would I make to achieve the same effect from a Win32 application?
Clock polling doesn't work, of course, because that spikes the CPU. Neither does Sleep(), because you only get around 50ms granularity at best.
They are using multimedia timers. You can find information on MSDN here
Only the view is invalidated (f.e. with InvalidateRect)on each multimedia timer event. Drawing happens in the WM_PAINT / OnPaint handler.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with sleep.
You can use a combination of QueryPerformanceCounter/QueryPerformanceFrequency to obtain very accurate timings and on average you can create a loop which ticks forward on average exactly when it's supposed to.
I have never seen a sleep to miss it's deadline by as much as 50 ms however, I've seen plenty of naive timers that drift. i.e. accumalte a small delay and conincedentally updates noticable irregular intervals. This is what causes uneven framerates.
If you play a very short beep on every n:th frame, this is very audiable.
Also, logic and rendering can be run independently of each other. The CPU might not appear to be that busy, but I bet you the GPU is hard at work.
Now, about not hogging the CPU. CPU usage is just a break down of CPU time spent by a process under a given sample (the thread schedulerer actually tracks this). If you have a target of 30 Hz for your game. You're limited to 33ms per frame, otherwise you'll be lagging behind (too slow CPU or too slow code), if you can't hit this target you won't be running at 30 Hz and if you hit it under 33ms then you can yield processor time, effectivly freeing up resources.
This might be an intresting read for you as well.
On a side note, instead of yielding time you could effecivly be doing prepwork for future computations. Some games when they are not under the heaviest of loads actually do things as sorting and memory defragmentation, a little bit here and there, adds up in the end.
I have a large (500K lines) .NET CF (C#) program, running on CE6/.NET CF 3.5 (v.3.5.10181.0). This is running on a FreeScale i.Mx31 (ARM) # 400MHz. It has 128MB RAM, with ~80MB available to applications. My app is the only significant one running (this is a dedicated, embedded system). Managed memory in use (as reported by GC.Collect) is about 18MB.
To give a better idea of the app size, here's some stats culled from .NET CF Remote Performance Monitor after staring up the application:
GC:
Garbage Collections 131
Bytes Collected by GC 97,919,260
Managed Bytes in use after GC 17,774,992
Total Bytes in use after GC 24,117,424
GC Compactions 41
JIT:
Native Bytes Jitted: 10,274,820
Loader:
Classes Loaded 7,393
Methods Loaded 27,691
Recently, I have been trying to track down a performance problem. I found that my benchmark after running the app in two different startup configurations would run in approximately 2 seconds (slow case) vs. 1 second (fast case). In the slow case, the time for the benchmark could change randomly from EXE run to EXE run from 1.1 to 2 seconds, but for any given EXE run, would not change for the life of the application. In other words, you could re-run the benchmark and the time for the test stays the same until you restart the EXE, at which point a new time is established and consistent.
I could not explain the 1.1 to 2x slowdown via any conventional mechanism, or by narrowing the slowdown to any particular part of the benchmark code. It appeared that the overall process was just running slower, almost like a thread was spinning and taking away some of "my" CPU.
Then, I randomly discovered that just by switching away from my app (the GUI loses the foreground) to another app, my performance issue disappears. It stays gone even after returning my app to the foreground. I now have a tentative workaround where my app after startup launches an auxiliary app with a 1x1 size window that kills itself after 5ms. Thus the aux app takes the foreground, then relinquishes it.
The question is, why does this speed up my application?
I know that code gets pitched when a .NET CF app loses the foreground. I also notice that when performing a "GC Heap" capture with .NET CF Remote Performance Monitor, a Code Pitch is logged -- and this also triggers the performance improvement in my app. So I suspect somehow that code pitching is related or even responsible for fixing performance. But I'm at a loss as to figure out how to determine if that is really the case, or even to explain why pitching code could help in this way. Does pitching out lots of code somehow significantly help locality of reference of code pages (that are re-JITted, presumably near each other in memory) enough to help this much? (My benchmark spans probably 3 dozen routines and hundreds of lines of code.)
Most importantly, what can I do in my app to reliably avoid this slower condition. Any pointers to relevant .NET CF / JIT / Code pitching information would be greatly appreciated.
Your app going to the background auto-triggers a GC.Collect, which collects, may compact the GC Heap and may pitch code. Have you checked to see if a manual GC.Collect without going to the background gives the same behavior? It might not be pitching that's giving the perf gain, it might be collection or compaction. If a significant number of dead roots are swept up, walking the root tree may be getting faster. Can't say I've specifically seen this issue, so this is all conjecture.
Send your app a wm_hibernate before your performance loop. Will clean up things
We have a similar issue with our .NET CF application.
Over time, our application progressively slows down, eventually to a halt with what I anticipate is due to high CPU load, or as #wil-s says, as if thread is spinning consuming CPU. The only assumption / conclusion I've made to so far is either we have a rogue thread in our code, or there's an under the cover issue in .NET CF, maybe with the JITter.
Closing the application and re-launching returns our application to normal expected performance.
I am yet to implement code change to test issuing WM_HIBERNATE or launch a dummy app which quits itself (as above) to force a code pitch, but am fairly sure this will resolve our issue based on the above comments. (so many thanks for that)
However, I'm subsequently interested to know whether a root cause was ever found to this specific issue?
Incidentally and seemingly off topic (but bear with me), we're using a Freescale i.MX28 processor and are experiencing unpredictable FlashDisk corruption. Seeing 2K blocks of 0xFFs (erased blocks) in random files located on NAND Flash.
I'm mentioning this as I now believe the CPU and FlashDisk corruption issues are linked, due to this article as well as this one:
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/26720/flash-memory-corruption-due-to-electricals
In the article, #jwygralak67 comments:
I recently worked through a flash corruption issue, on a WinCE system,
as part of a development team. We would sporadically find 2K blocks of
flash that were erased. (All bytes 0xFF) For about 6 months we tested
everything from ESD, to dirty power to EMI and RFI interference, we
bought brand new devices and tracked usage to make sure we weren't
exceeding the erase cycle limit and buring out blocks, we went through
our (application level) software with a fine toothed comb.
In the end it turned out to be an obscure bug in the very low level
flash driver code, which only occurred under periods of heavy CPU
load. The driver came from a 3rd party. We informed them of the issue
we found, but I don't know if they ever released a patch.
Unfortunately, we're yet to make contact with him.
With all of this in mind, potentially if we work around the high CPU load, maybe the corruption will no longer be present. Another conjecture case!
On that assumption however, this doesn't give a firm root cause for either situation, which I'm desperately seeking!
Any knowledge or insight, however small, would be very gratefully received.
#ctacke - we've spoken before regarding OpenNETCF via email, so I'm pleased to see your name!