Fast block placement algorithm, advice needed? - algorithm

Question

I need to emulate the window placement strategy of the Fluxbox window manager.
As a rough guide, visualize randomly sized windows filling up the screen one at a time, where the rough size of each results in an average of 80 windows on screen without any window overlapping another.
If you have Fluxbox and Xterm installed on your system, you can try the xwinmidiarptoy BASH script to see a rough prototype of what I want happening. See the xwinmidiarptoy.txt notes I've written about it explaining what it does and how it should be used.
It is important to note that windows will close and the space that closed windows previously occupied becomes available once more for the placement of new windows.
The algorithm needs to be an Online Algorithm processing data "piece-by-piece in a serial fashion, i.e., in the order that the input is fed to the algorithm, without having the entire input available from the start."
The Fluxbox window placement strategy has three binary options which I want to emulate:
Windows build horizontal rows or vertical columns (potentially)
Windows are placed from left to right or right to left
Windows are placed from top to bottom or bottom to top
Differences between the target algorithm and a window-placement algorithm
The coordinate units are not pixels. The grid within which blocks will be placed will be 128 x 128 units. Furthermore, the placement area may be further shrunk by a boundary area placed within the grid.
Why is the algorithm a problem?
It needs to operate to the deadlines of a real time thread in an audio application.
At this moment I am only concerned with getting a fast algorithm, don't concern yourself over the implications of real time threads and all the hurdles in programming that that brings.
And although the algorithm will never ever place a window which overlaps another, the user will be able to place and move certain types of blocks, overlapping windows will exist. The data structure used for storing the windows and/or free space, needs to be able to handle this overlap.
So far I have two choices which I have built loose prototypes for:
1) A port of the Fluxbox placement algorithm into my code.
The problem with this is, the client (my program) gets kicked out of the audio server (JACK) when I try placing the worst case scenario of 256 blocks using the algorithm. This algorithm performs over 14000 full (linear) scans of the list of blocks already placed when placing the 256th window.
For a demonstration of this I created a program called text_boxer-0.0.2.tar.bz2 which takes a text file as input and arranges it within ASCII boxes. Issue make to build it. A little unfriendly, use --help (or any other invalid option) for a list of command line options. You must specify the text file by using the option.
2) My alternative approach.
Only partially implemented, this approach uses a data structure for each area of rectangular free unused space (the list of windows can be entirely separate, and is not required for testing of this algorithm). The data structure acts as a node in a doubly linked list (with sorted insertion), as well as containing the coordinates of the top-left corner, and the width and height.
Furthermore, each block data structure also contains four links which connect to each immediately adjacent (touching) block on each of the four sides.
IMPORTANT RULE: Each block may only touch with one block per side. This is a rule specific to the algorithm's way of storing free unused space and bears no factor in how many actual windows may touch each other.
The problem with this approach is, it's very complex. I have implemented the straightforward cases where 1) space is removed from one corner of a block, 2) splitting neighbouring blocks so that the IMPORTANT RULE is adhered to.
The less straightforward case, where the space to be removed can only be found within a column or row of boxes, is only partially implemented - if one of the blocks to be removed is an exact fit for width (ie column) or height (ie row) then problems occur. And don't even mention the fact this only checks columns one box wide, and rows one box tall.
I've implemented this algorithm in C - the language I am using for this project (I've not used C++ for a few years and am uncomfortable using it after having focused all my attention to C development, it's a hobby). The implementation is 700+ lines of code (including plenty of blank lines, brace lines, comments etc). The implementation only works for the horizontal-rows + left-right + top-bottom placement strategy.
So I've either got to add some way of making this +700 lines of code work for the other 7 placement strategy options, or I'm going to have to duplicate those +700 lines of code for the other seven options. Neither of these is attractive, the first, because the existing code is complex enough, the second, because of bloat.
The algorithm is not even at a stage where I can use it in the real time worst case scenario, because of missing functionality, so I still don't know if it actually performs better or worse than the first approach.
The current state of C implementation of this algorithm is freespace.c. I use gcc -O0 -ggdb freespace.c to build, and run it in an xterm sized to atleast 124 x 60 chars.
What else is there?
I've skimmed over and discounted:
Bin Packing algorithms: their
emphasis on optimal fit does not
match the requirements of this
algorithm.
Recursive Bisection Placement algorithms: sounds promising, but
these are for circuit design. Their
emphasis is optimal wire length.
Both of these, especially the latter, all elements to be placed/packs are known before the algorithm begins.
What are your thoughts on this? How would you approach it? What other algorithms should I look at? Or even what concepts should I research seeing as I've not studied computer science/software engineering?
Please ask questions in comments if further information is needed.
Further ideas developed since asking this question
Some combination of my "alternative algorithm" with a spatial hashmap for identifying if a large window to be placed would cover several blocks of free space.

Answer 1

I would consider some kind of spatial hashing structure. Imagine your entire free space is gridded coarsely, call them blocks. As windows come and go, they occupy certain sets of contiguous rectangular blocks. For each block, keep track of the largest unused rectangle incident to each corner, so you need to store 2*4 real numbers per block. For an empty block, the rectangles at each corner have size equal to the block. Thus, a block can only be "used up" at its corners, and so at most 4 windows can sit in any block.
Now each time you add a window, you have to search for a rectangular set of blocks for which the window will fit, and when you do, update the free corner sizes. You should size your blocks so that a handful (~4x4) of them fit into a typical window. For each window, keep track of which blocks it touches (you only need to keep track of extents), as well as which windows touch a given block (at most 4, in this algorithm). There is an obvious tradeoff between the granularity of the blocks and the amount of work per window insertion/removal.
When removing a window, loop over all blocks it touches, and for each block, recompute the free corner sizes (you know which windows touch it). This is fast since the inner loop is at most length 4.
I imagine a data structure like
struct block{
int free_x[4]; // 0 = top left, 1 = top right,
int free_y[4]; // 2 = bottom left, 3 = bottom right
int n_windows; // number of windows that occupy this block
int window_id[4]; // IDs of windows that occupy this block
};
block blocks[NX][NY];
struct window{
int id;
int used_block_x[2]; // 0 = first index of used block,
int used_block_y[2]; // 1 = last index of used block
};
Edit
Here is a picture:
It shows two example blocks. The colored dots indicate the corners of the block, and the arrows emanating from them indicate the extents of the largest-free-rectangle from that corner.
You mentioned in the edit that the grid on which your windows will be placed is already quite coarse (127x127), so the block sizes would probably be something like 4 grid cells on a side, which probably wouldn't gain you much. This method is suitable if your window corner coordinates can take on a lot of values (I was thinking they would be pixels), but not so much in your case. You can still try it, since it's simple. You would probably want to also keep a list of completely empty blocks so that if a window comes in that is larger than 2 block widths, then you look first in that list before looking for some suitable free space in the block grid.

Answer 2

After some false starts, I have eventually arrived here. Here is where the use of data structures for storing rectangular areas of free space have been abandoned. Instead, there is a 2d array with 128 x 128 elements to achieve the same result but with much less complexity.
The following function scans the array for an area width * height in size. The first position it finds it writes the top left coordinates of, to where resultx and resulty point to.
_Bool freespace_remove( freespace* fs,
int width, int height,
int* resultx, int* resulty)
{
int x = 0;
int y = 0;
const int rx = FSWIDTH - width;
const int by = FSHEIGHT - height;
*resultx = -1;
*resulty = -1;
char* buf[height];
for (y = 0; y < by; ++y)
{
x = 0;
char* scanx = fs->buf[y];
while (x < rx)
{
while(x < rx && *(scanx + x))
++x;
int w, h;
for (h = 0; h < height; ++h)
buf[h] = fs->buf[y + h] + x;
_Bool usable = true;
w = 0;
while (usable && w < width)
{
h = 0;
while (usable && h < height)
if (*(buf[h++] + w))
usable = false;
++w;
}
if (usable)
{
for (w = 0; w < width; ++w)
for (h = 0; h < height; ++h)
*(buf[h] + w) = 1;
*resultx = x;
*resulty = y;
return true;
}
x += w;
}
}
return false;
}
The 2d array is zero initialized. Any areas in the array where the space is used are set to 1. This structure and function will work independently from the actual list of windows that are occupying the areas marked with 1's.
The advantages of this method are its simplicity. It only uses one data structure - an array. The function is short, and should not be too difficult to adapt to handle the remaining placement options (here it only handles Row Smart + Left to Right + Top to Bottom).
My initial tests also look promising on the speed front. Though I don't think this would be suitable for a window manager placing windows on, for example, a 1600 x 1200 desktop with pixel accuracy, for my purposes I believe it is going to be much better than any of the previous methods I have tried.
Compilable test code here:
http://jwm-art.net/art/text/freespace_grid.c
(in Linux I use gcc -ggdb -O0 freespace_grid.c to compile)

Answer 3

#include <limits.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FSWIDTH 128
#define FSHEIGHT 128
#ifdef USE_64BIT_ARRAY
#define FSBUFBITS 64
#define FSBUFWIDTH 2
typedef uint64_t fsbuf_type;
#define TRAILING_ZEROS( v ) __builtin_ctzl(( v ))
#define LEADING_ONES( v ) __builtin_clzl(~( v ))
#else
#ifdef USE_32BIT_ARRAY
#define FSBUFBITS 32
#define FSBUFWIDTH 4
typedef uint32_t fsbuf_type;
#define TRAILING_ZEROS( v ) __builtin_ctz(( v ))
#define LEADING_ONES( v ) __builtin_clz(~( v ))
#else
#ifdef USE_16BIT_ARRAY
#define FSBUFBITS 16
#define FSBUFWIDTH 8
typedef uint16_t fsbuf_type;
#define TRAILING_ZEROS( v ) __builtin_ctz( 0xffff0000 | ( v ))
#define LEADING_ONES( v ) __builtin_clz(~( v ) << 16)
#else
#ifdef USE_8BIT_ARRAY
#define FSBUFBITS 8
#define FSBUFWIDTH 16
typedef uint8_t fsbuf_type;
#define TRAILING_ZEROS( v ) __builtin_ctz( 0xffffff00 | ( v ))
#define LEADING_ONES( v ) __builtin_clz(~( v ) << 24)
#else
#define FSBUFBITS 1
#define FSBUFWIDTH 128
typedef unsigned char fsbuf_type;
#define TRAILING_ZEROS( v ) (( v ) ? 0 : 1)
#define LEADING_ONES( v ) (( v ) ? 1 : 0)
#endif
#endif
#endif
#endif
static const fsbuf_type fsbuf_max = ~(fsbuf_type)0;
static const fsbuf_type fsbuf_high = (fsbuf_type)1 << (FSBUFBITS - 1);
typedef struct freespacegrid
{
fsbuf_type buf[FSHEIGHT][FSBUFWIDTH];
_Bool left_to_right;
_Bool top_to_bottom;
} freespace;
void freespace_dump(freespace* fs)
{
int x, y;
for (y = 0; y < FSHEIGHT; ++y)
{
for (x = 0; x < FSBUFWIDTH; ++x)
{
fsbuf_type i = FSBUFBITS;
fsbuf_type b = fs->buf[y][x];
for(; i != 0; --i, b <<= 1)
putchar(b & fsbuf_high ? '#' : '/');
/*
if (x + 1 < FSBUFWIDTH)
putchar('|');
*/
}
putchar('\n');
}
}
freespace* freespace_new(void)
{
freespace* fs = malloc(sizeof(*fs));
if (!fs)
return 0;
int y;
for (y = 0; y < FSHEIGHT; ++y)
{
memset(&fs->buf[y][0], 0, sizeof(fsbuf_type) * FSBUFWIDTH);
}
fs->left_to_right = true;
fs->top_to_bottom = true;
return fs;
}
void freespace_delete(freespace* fs)
{
if (!fs)
return;
free(fs);
}
/* would be private function: */
void fs_set_buffer( fsbuf_type buf[FSHEIGHT][FSBUFWIDTH],
unsigned x,
unsigned y1,
unsigned xoffset,
unsigned width,
unsigned height)
{
fsbuf_type v;
unsigned y;
for (; width > 0 && x < FSBUFWIDTH; ++x)
{
if (width < xoffset)
v = (((fsbuf_type)1 << width) - 1) << (xoffset - width);
else if (xoffset < FSBUFBITS)
v = ((fsbuf_type)1 << xoffset) - 1;
else
v = fsbuf_max;
for (y = y1; y < y1 + height; ++y)
{
#ifdef FREESPACE_DEBUG
if (buf[y][x] & v)
printf("**** over-writing area ****\n");
#endif
buf[y][x] |= v;
}
if (width < xoffset)
return;
width -= xoffset;
xoffset = FSBUFBITS;
}
}
_Bool freespace_remove( freespace* fs,
unsigned width, unsigned height,
int* resultx, int* resulty)
{
unsigned x, x1, y;
unsigned w, h;
unsigned xoffset, x1offset;
unsigned tz; /* trailing zeros */
fsbuf_type* xptr;
fsbuf_type mask = 0;
fsbuf_type v;
_Bool scanning = false;
_Bool offset = false;
*resultx = -1;
*resulty = -1;
for (y = 0; y < (unsigned) FSHEIGHT - height; ++y)
{
scanning = false;
xptr = &fs->buf[y][0];
for (x = 0; x < FSBUFWIDTH; ++x, ++xptr)
{
if(*xptr == fsbuf_max)
{
scanning = false;
continue;
}
if (!scanning)
{
scanning = true;
x1 = x;
x1offset = xoffset = FSBUFBITS;
w = width;
}
retry:
if (w < xoffset)
mask = (((fsbuf_type)1 << w) - 1) << (xoffset - w);
else if (xoffset < FSBUFBITS)
mask = ((fsbuf_type)1 << xoffset) - 1;
else
mask = fsbuf_max;
offset = false;
for (h = 0; h < height; ++h)
{
v = fs->buf[y + h][x] & mask;
if (v)
{
tz = TRAILING_ZEROS(v);
offset = true;
break;
}
}
if (offset)
{
if (tz)
{
x1 = x;
w = width;
x1offset = xoffset = tz;
goto retry;
}
scanning = false;
}
else
{
if (w <= xoffset) /***** RESULT! *****/
{
fs_set_buffer(fs->buf, x1, y, x1offset, width, height);
*resultx = x1 * FSBUFBITS + (FSBUFBITS - x1offset);
*resulty = y;
return true;
}
w -= xoffset;
xoffset = FSBUFBITS;
}
}
}
return false;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
int x[1999];
int y[1999];
int w[1999];
int h[1999];
int i;
freespace* fs = freespace_new();
for (i = 0; i < 1999; ++i, ++u)
{
w[i] = rand() % 18 + 4;
h[i] = rand() % 18 + 4;
freespace_remove(fs, w[i], h[i], &x[i], &y[i]);
/*
freespace_dump(fs);
printf("w:%d h:%d x:%d y:%d\n", w[i], h[i], x[i], y[i]);
if (x[i] == -1)
printf("not removed space %d\n", i);
getchar();
*/
}
freespace_dump(fs);
freespace_delete(fs);
return 0;
}
The above code requires one of USE_64BIT_ARRAY, USE_32BIT_ARRAY, USE_16BIT_ARRAY, USE_8BIT_ARRAY to be defined otherwise it will fall back to using only the high bit of an unsigned char for storing the state of grid cells.
The function fs_set_buffer will not be declared in the header, and will become static within the implementation when this code gets split between .h and .c files. A more user friendly function hiding the implementation details will be provided for removing used space from the grid.
Overall, this implementation is faster without optimization than my previous answer with maximum optimization (using GCC on 64bit Gentoo, optimization options -O0 and -O3 respectively).
Regarding USE_NNBIT_ARRAY and the different bit sizes, I used two different methods of timing the code which make 1999 calls to freespace_remove.
Timing main() using the Unix time command (and disabling any output in the code) seemed to prove my expectations correct - that higher bit sizes are faster.
On the other hand, timing individual calls to freespace_remove (using gettimeofday) and comparing the maximum time taken over the 1999 calls seemed to indicate lower bit sizes were faster.
This has only been tested on a 64bit system (Intel Dual Core II).