processing / processing/processing4

`loadPixels` and `PGraphics` dependency batching in WebGPU

Open
#1,320 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

webgpu
Dominant language
Java
Stars
494
Forks
183
Avg merge
4h 39m
Merged PRs (30d)
3

Description

The processing API allows performing arbitrary GPU->CPU readback on demand via the loadPixels method. This is generally an extension of the immediate mode philosophy of processing but poses significant friction with modern graphics architectures. In contrast with opengl, which goes to significant lengths to preserve the illusion that GPU data is easily accessible, WebGPU is designed to foreground that GPU operations are asynchronous relative to the CPU timeline. While the API does support blocking on these operations, the expectation of most framework including bevy is that you won't.

Concretely why this matters is because modern graphics libraries really want to batch rendering together for efficiency reasons. For example, in Bevy, all cameras (which could be considered an analog to a PGraphics instance) want to render at the same time every frame. loadPixels introduces an architectural complication in that the current draw state may need to be flushed and made visible to any other graphics context at any arbitrary time.

In other words, beyond any performance concerns, this highlights a potential dependency problem between PGraphics instances:

  • In the event where multiple PGraphics instances aren't dependent on each other, batching works fine and we can delay flushing all their draw state til the end of frame.
  • When a PGraphics is used in another PGraphics, e.g. an off-screen texture used by something in rendering to the screen, we could simply just track a relative order to ensure the Bevy Camera for one runs before the other.
  • If the user calls loadPixels, we need to flush the draw state right now and make the texture visible to potentially any other CPU code.

Approach for WebGPU with Bevy

We should start just by mirroring the immediate mode API. What this means is that we'll mirror the drawStart, flush, drawEnd lifecycle. Set CameraOutputMode::Skipat the beginning of each frame for each surface to render only to the intermediate texture and CameraOutputMode::Write only when calling drawEnd.

We can handle loadPixels in this way just by doing a synchronous readback after a flush. It's fine, and will superficially look like opengl's behavior from the user perspective.

Because this immediate mode approach likely has some undesirable overhead (although tbd, it may be pretty minimal), we can do our own dependency/dirty tracking if necessary down the line. What this would look like is keeping an in-flight dependency graph of PGraphics and how they're being used, and only trigger flushes when they acutally need to be made visible to other graphics contexts. This isn't hard to do but will make the implementation more confusing.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by tracing the WebGPU implementation of loadPixels, PGraphics, and the drawStart, flush, and drawEnd lifecycle described in the issue. Check how CameraOutputMode is set for each surface, then validate the immediate-mode approach with synchronous readback and the stated rendering order and visibility requirements.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
computer-graphics
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.