Welcome to our latest new user
fredrikr
! (Registered 20180118)
You are not logged in
CSDb User Forums
Forums
>
C64 Coding
>
Sorting
20071008
18:08
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 4142
Sorting
are sorters really so slow in games? :) I have made my unrolled version for my theoretical game (;), and it takes 132 rlines to sort 32 numbers o_O worst case is ~200 lines. tho when its the case of 4 numbers have to be swapped only it does the job in ~10 lines. wastes a lot of memory but I like it :)
... 149 posts hidden. Click
here
to view all posts....
20071014
20:47
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 4142
it should be noted tho, that worst case sorting never happens with progressive sort, especially if you optimize for only adding/removing 1 sprite to the sort per frame. I'm also realizing that the zp method presented above is not good, as the rare case with insertion sort (my current approach) is when there's no need to swap.
20071014
21:29
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1262
Quote:
hmm  so I'd need to manage less than (34*63)/32=67 cycles per actor.
I've still got some optimising to do, but at the moment the worst case cost per actor ranges from 46 to 87 cycles depending on the number of other actors are in the same bucket (1 to 7 others) plus a small overhead for each of the 10 buckets.
There are a lot of unnecessary loads and stores in the more expensive cases though, so I'll see how I go over this week.
A sorting network is basically a list of optional exchanges of predetermined pairs, that after they are complete guarantee the list is sorted. It avoids computing array indices and a lot of the branching  eg
#define SWAP(a,b) .(:ldx zpt+a:ldy zpt+b:lda act_y,x:cmp act_y,y:bcs noswap:stx zpt+b:sty zpt+a:noswap:.)
SWAP(0,1)
SWAP(2,3)
SWAP(0,2)
SWAP(1,3)
SWAP(1,2)
will ensure that four actor indices stored in zpt..zpt+3 will be sorted by y position. For an 8 element list, you only need 19 swaps.
Hmmm... I was sure sorting networks were O(n log n) but apparantly Ajtai, Komlós and Szemerédi have O(log n) sorting network. I.e. the maximum depth (or comparators executed) is log n. It feels highly counter intuitive imo but I won't question it. Anyways, point is that while radixsort is O(n*m) (where n is # of input and m is # of digits), an optimal sorting network is O(log n).
Now, this O() notation always hides huges constants for a c64 but for a f.e. 48 actor sorter it should require at most 48*log2(48) comparators statically in memory and at most log2(48) of those are executed at any given input. => NICE!
20071015
02:01
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 731
Ajtai, Komlós and Szemerédi's network is O(log N) depth, but still has O(N log N) comparitors  their timings are for parallel hardware, where you can swap elements 0 and 1 at the same time as 2 and 3, but swapping 0 with 2 would have to wait until the next cycle. The sample network I gave above they would categorise has having depth 3.
I was looking at something that on serial hardware like our humble c64 would be O(N log k), where k is the maximum number of sprites in any given bucket, which for buckets less than 22 lines high will be 8.
Oswald: I know the stuff I'm playing with this week will not give optimal results for a relatively stable arrangement  it's why I usually use insertion sort on a linked list of actors. I believe Doynax is attempting to avoid the huge spikes of CPU time a progressive sort would take whenever there is a massive change in order, like when two multisprite bosses are crossing vertically while you shoot at them with vertically fast moving sprite bullets ;)
20071015
08:45
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 4142
actually I have just arrived to what you're talking about: insertion sort on a linked list of actors :) as one of the drawbacks of insertion sort is the need to move many elements, but with a linked list you can insert the actor into the right position without shuffling bytes around.
ldx actorlink,x
cmp actory,x
bcc nextelement
 insert actor into chain & return to the outer unrolled loop
nextelement
ldy actorlink,x
cmp actory,y
bcc nextelement
only 11 cycles per comparison. you even have the prev actor's link in one of the registers, so it can be a one way chain easily. guess you already do it like this ;)
20071015
10:53
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 731
Exactly :)
I traverse a singly linked actor_next list in the endofscreen interrupt running their movement scripts, and after each has been moved (unless it has just died) I insert it into a singly linked actor_prev list.
Then once all the actors have been processed, I reverse the list.
ldx actor_prev,y
tay
sta actor_next,x
beq done
...
20071015
13:29
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1262
Quote:
Ajtai, Komlós and Szemerédi's network is O(log N) depth, but still has O(N log N) comparitors  their timings are for parallel hardware, where you can swap elements 0 and 1 at the same time as 2 and 3, but swapping 0 with 2 would have to wait until the next cycle. The sample network I gave above they would categorise has having depth 3.
I was looking at something that on serial hardware like our humble c64 would be O(N log k), where k is the maximum number of sprites in any given bucket, which for buckets less than 22 lines high will be 8.
Oswald: I know the stuff I'm playing with this week will not give optimal results for a relatively stable arrangement  it's why I usually use insertion sort on a linked list of actors. I believe Doynax is attempting to avoid the huge spikes of CPU time a progressive sort would take whenever there is a massive change in order, like when two multisprite bosses are crossing vertically while you shoot at them with vertically fast moving sprite bullets ;)
Ah yeah, later that night I realized that the O(log N) was due to parallelism.
To optimize further I think we should look at the aims here:
* We want a sorted order to trigger IRQs.
* We want to assign each actor to a sprite channel.
* We want to kick out actors when there all channels are full.
First thing we can note is that the top 8 sprites doesn't really have to be sorted in respect to each other, we only need to assign them to arbitrary unique sprite channels + find the top most for the first IRQ trigger.
Just ideas... but what I mean is that if we instead focus on what really need to be done instead of just blindly sort all actors first, then assign etc.
20071015
13:37
doynax
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 212
Quote:
Ah yeah, later that night I realized that the O(log N) was due to parallelism.
To optimize further I think we should look at the aims here:
* We want a sorted order to trigger IRQs.
* We want to assign each actor to a sprite channel.
* We want to kick out actors when there all channels are full.
First thing we can note is that the top 8 sprites doesn't really have to be sorted in respect to each other, we only need to assign them to arbitrary unique sprite channels + find the top most for the first IRQ trigger.
Just ideas... but what I mean is that if we instead focus on what really need to be done instead of just blindly sort all actors first, then assign etc.
Unfortunately we still need to sort the first eight sprites in order to reuse them as soon as possible. Unless you use a radically different approach like what Cruzer suggested of course.
There may be cases where we can determine ahead of time that there will be "enough" free raster time anyway and don't perform a perfect sort on some segment of sprites, but as to how you'd implement such a beast in practice..
20170812
11:39
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 731
Necro thread time! (I know, I know, if I'd waited another two months it'd be the ten year anniversary. But I want to publish this now so I can move on to something else :P)
I've been meaning for a while to try and accelerate a perfect order bucket sort by finding a good way to skip over unused entries.
After a bit of experimentation this year, the best I've managed is to use a set of flag bytes, with one bit for each bucket to say whether there are any actors in it on this frame.
For any nonzero flag byte, a lookup table used to quickly determine the index of the least significant one bit, so that that that bucket can then be emptied by pushing each sprite index from the list starting with that bucket entry onto the stack. The used buckets are cleared as they are emptied, so no postcleanup is required, and the untouched buckets take no CPU time at all.
By packing eight flags into each flag byte, and unrolling the code to one block per flag byte, the worst case overhead per bucket is only 1.25 cycles. Thus, the CPU time for a perfect sort is only marginally worse than what it would be for a sort routine that only used half as many buckets.
Total time, a shade under 40 raster lines \O/ (yes, doynax still wins… /o\)
Code is up at codebase, cf
http://www.codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:flagged_bucket_sort
20170813
13:04
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 731
…removed a redundant LDA#255 from each flag byte block, just before the STA back into the bucket list (the accumulator already contains a list terminator at that point), and remembered to factor in the flag bytes being in zero page.
Down to 38.5 raster lines now, only 12% slower than radix sort.
20170813
21:26
doynax
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 212
Very neat. I never would have considered doing a sparse bucket sort :)
Oh, and you probably shouldn't take my stated radix sort timings at facevalue. The sparse sort implementation may easily be faster already.
Plus counting sorting cycles in isolation is a bit of a limited model. A major part depends on whether the sorting steps slot into the game's actor and multiplexer updates such that the loops may be folded and loaded data reused.
(Offtopic, but the coarse bucket sort method can be improved for less frantic applications by using a stable sort while cycling through the remainders as offsets for the division table lookup each frame, eventually reaching the correct order for static displays. It helps if the permutation is chosen to minimize settling errors, and perhaps using a prime divisor or randomized shuffle to avoid interference against sprite movement.)
Previous

1

2

3

4

5

6
 7 
8

9

10

11

12
 ... 
17

Next
Refresh
Subscribe to this thread:
You need to be logged in to post in the forum.
Search the forum:
Search
All forums
C64 Coding
C64 Composing
C64 Pixeling
C64 Productions
CSDb Bug Reports
CSDb Discussions
CSDb Entries
CSDb Feedback
CSDb Info
CSDb moderators
CSDb Questions
CSDb V2 development
Messages to moderators
Requests
for
in
Writer & text
Text
Writer
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
All
Releases
Groups
Sceners
Events
BBS
SIDs

Forum
Comments
Advanced
Users Online
Guests online: 42
Top Demos
1
Uncensored
(9.7)
2
Edge of Disgrace
(9.7)
3
Coma Light 13
(9.6)
4
The Shores of Reflec..
(9.6)
5
Comaland 100%
(9.6)
6
Lunatico
(9.6)
7
Incoherent Nightmare
(9.5)
8
Wonderland XII
(9.5)
9
Comaland
(9.5)
10
Wonderland XIII
(9.5)
Top onefile Demos
1
Pandemoniac Part 2 o..
(9.6)
2
FMX Music Demo
(9.6)
3
Merry Xmas 2017
(9.5)
4
Synthesis
(9.5)
5
Daah, Those Acid Pil..
(9.5)
6
Dawnfall V1.1
(9.5)
7
Dawnfall
(9.4)
8
Treu Love [reu]
(9.4)
9
Field Sort
(9.4)
10
Pro Memoria 4
(9.3)
Top Groups
1
Oxyron
(9.4)
2
Booze Design
(9.4)
3
Censor Design
(9.3)
4
The Judges
(9.3)
5
Crest
(9.3)
Top HardwareGurus
1
Soci
(9.9)
2
Wiesel
(9.9)
3
Grue
(9.8)
4
Zer0X
(9.8)
5
Lemming
(9.7)
Home

Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 20012018
Page generated in: 0.883 sec.