Path Guiding: Adding guiding on glossy surfaces via RIS #107782

Merged
Sebastian Herholz merged 1 commits from sherholz/blender:cycles_path_guiding_RIS into main 2023-05-22 16:47:10 +02:00

This PR adds support for path guiding on glossy materials.
Two new guiding modes are added Re-sampled Importance Sampling(RIS) and Roughness-based.
The first uses Re-Sampling Importance Sampling to with two candidates (one from the BSDF and one from the guiding distribution).
the second adjusts the guiding probability based on material roughness (specular -> no guiding and diffuse -> guiding (50%)).

After some intensive tests by the community (https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137)
I choose to set RIS as the new default method.

Todo:

  • clean up code in surface_shader.h

Example:
image

UI-changes:
image

This PR adds support for path guiding on glossy materials. Two new guiding modes are added `Re-sampled Importance Sampling`(RIS) and `Roughness-based`. The first uses Re-Sampling Importance Sampling to with two candidates (one from the BSDF and one from the guiding distribution). the second adjusts the guiding probability based on material roughness (specular -> no guiding and diffuse -> guiding (50%)). After some intensive tests by the community (https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137) I choose to set `RIS` as the new default method. Todo: - clean up code in `surface_shader.h` Example: ![image](/attachments/c65d6ec9-90a1-45b8-b8b9-75094e1fb190) UI-changes: ![image](/attachments/aa9604e2-0ad2-4901-97a4-aebc7e9e4dd1)
Brecht Van Lommel was assigned by Sebastian Herholz 2023-05-09 15:13:43 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin was assigned by Sebastian Herholz 2023-05-09 15:13:43 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel removed their assignment 2023-05-09 15:36:13 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin was unassigned by Brecht Van Lommel 2023-05-09 15:36:13 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel requested review from Brecht Van Lommel 2023-05-09 15:36:25 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel requested review from Weizhen Huang 2023-05-09 15:36:25 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel requested review from Sergey Sharybin 2023-05-09 15:36:35 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin requested changes 2023-05-10 09:49:16 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin left a comment
Owner

It is a bit hard to see the exact difference when images are put on the same canvas. It would be helpful to have them as individual images to help doing pixel-wise comparison.

For the patch itself I do not find the direction of adding more options something that fits the Blender vision, as well as it adds permutations for developers to ensure be working.

If there is a strong case why all of the guiding methods are needed then it needs to be documented, ideally in a way that is clear for artists.
Otherwise I'd propose to stick to one method and focus on ensuring it works the best possible way.

What I am also curios is the performance comparison on GPU.

It is a bit hard to see the exact difference when images are put on the same canvas. It would be helpful to have them as individual images to help doing pixel-wise comparison. For the patch itself I do not find the direction of adding more options something that fits the Blender vision, as well as it adds permutations for developers to ensure be working. If there is a strong case why all of the guiding methods are needed then it needs to be documented, ideally in a way that is clear for artists. Otherwise I'd propose to stick to one method and focus on ensuring it works the best possible way. What I am also curios is the performance comparison on GPU.
@ -21,9 +21,33 @@
CCL_NAMESPACE_BEGIN
#define RIS_COSINE

Is it possible to remove the permutation of the RIS_COSINE and RIS_INCOMMING_RADIANCE?

Is it possible to remove the permutation of the `RIS_COSINE` and `RIS_INCOMMING_RADIANCE`?
Author
Member

Done,
The other define # define RIS_INCOMING_RADIANCE will be gone after we bumped the Open PGL to 0.5.0

Done, The other define `# define RIS_INCOMING_RADIANCE` will be gone after we bumped the Open PGL to 0.5.0
brecht marked this conversation as resolved
@ -22,2 +22,4 @@
CCL_NAMESPACE_BEGIN
#define RIS_COSINE
#if OPENPGL_VERSION_MINOR >= 5

I think we can make the 0.5 version required.

Other than that, I am not a fan of such implicit assumption that the OPENPGL_VERSION_MAJOR is 0. We really need to have an utility macro like I've shown in the comment in the #106861.

I think we can make the 0.5 version required. Other than that, I am not a fan of such implicit assumption that the `OPENPGL_VERSION_MAJOR` is 0. We really need to have an utility macro like I've shown in the comment in the #106861.
Author
Member

I already talked with Ray. As soon as every dependency package updated to Open PGL 0.5 I would like to bump the minimal required version to 0.5 and get rid of all these defines.

I already talked with Ray. As soon as every dependency package updated to Open PGL 0.5 I would like to bump the minimal required version to 0.5 and get rid of all these defines.

OpenPGL was updated to 0.5 for all platforms, so this can be simplified.

OpenPGL was updated to 0.5 for all platforms, so this can be simplified.
@ -530,2 +594,4 @@
return label;
}
ccl_device int surface_shader_bsdf_guided_sample_closure_ris(KernelGlobals kg,

Is there a link to a paper we can add here to help understanding all the math which is going on in the function?

Is there a link to a paper we can add here to help understanding all the math which is going on in the function?
Author
Member

This is an extension/variant of the standard RIS where I added some stuff.
A detailed description of the method with all the insides will be part of the Siggraph2023 Course on path guiding, I can add a link as soon as the course notes are online.

This is an extension/variant of the standard RIS where I added some stuff. A detailed description of the method with all the insides will be part of the Siggraph2023 Course on path guiding, I can add a link as soon as the course notes are online.
@ -532,0 +639,4 @@
int label_ris[2];
float3 omega_in_ris[2];
float ris_pdfs[2] = {0.f, 0.f};

Here and everywhere else in the patch: do not omit the 0 suffix (0.0f, not 0.f).

This is per the style guide: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Style_Guide/C_Cpp#Value_Literals

Here and everywhere else in the patch: do not omit the 0 suffix (0.0f, not 0.f). This is per the style guide: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Style_Guide/C_Cpp#Value_Literals
Author
Member

Done

Done
brecht marked this conversation as resolved
Author
Member

It is a bit hard to see the exact difference when images are put on the same canvas. It would be helpful to have them as individual images to help doing pixel-wise comparison.

For the patch itself I do not find the direction of adding more options something that fits the Blender vision, as well as it adds permutations for developers to ensure be working.

If there is a strong case why all of the guiding methods are needed then it needs to be documented, ideally in a way that is clear for artists.
Otherwise I'd propose to stick to one method and focus on ensuring it works the best possible way.

What I am also curios is the performance comparison on GPU.

@Sergey I understand your concerns, ideally I would also prefer to only have one guiding on/off button.
Unfortunately, the is no THE IDEAL WAY to integrate path guiding into a production renderer and I try to keep some option, also for debugging and testing purposes.

It helped a lot to get feedback from the community in nailing down which version seems to work best in practice.

As you can see all these options are only available under the Debug options, which should not be touched be the artists in their daily work. Unfortunately they do not really listen :( and play around with every button they find :).

I was thinking about hiding these options behind the WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG flag so that it is still possible to test and validate different options.

For GPU timings we will see when we have GPU support in Open PGL.
I am currently refactoring the RIS code, I think when porting to the GPU it can be made a little bit more GPU friendly when combined with reservoir sampling.

About the examples, here are some links from the community tests:

https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/673
https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/659
https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/656
https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/597

> It is a bit hard to see the exact difference when images are put on the same canvas. It would be helpful to have them as individual images to help doing pixel-wise comparison. > > For the patch itself I do not find the direction of adding more options something that fits the Blender vision, as well as it adds permutations for developers to ensure be working. > > If there is a strong case why all of the guiding methods are needed then it needs to be documented, ideally in a way that is clear for artists. > Otherwise I'd propose to stick to one method and focus on ensuring it works the best possible way. > > What I am also curios is the performance comparison on GPU. @Sergey I understand your concerns, ideally I would also prefer to only have one guiding on/off button. Unfortunately, the is no `THE IDEAL WAY` to integrate path guiding into a production renderer and I try to keep some option, also for debugging and testing purposes. It helped a lot to get feedback from the community in nailing down which version seems to work best in practice. As you can see all these options are only available under the Debug options, which should not be touched be the artists in their daily work. Unfortunately they do not really listen :( and play around with every button they find :). I was thinking about hiding these options behind the `WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG` flag so that it is still possible to test and validate different options. For GPU timings we will see when we have GPU support in Open PGL. I am currently refactoring the RIS code, I think when porting to the GPU it can be made a little bit more GPU friendly when combined with reservoir sampling. About the examples, here are some links from the community tests: https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/673 https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/659 https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/656 https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-path-guiding-tests/1388137/597

Thanks for the updates.

The point about the non-existing ideal algorithm applies to other areas of 3d software as well. It is fine to have extra options during development and feedback period, but for the final merge we really try hard to avoid adding them.

As you've said, no matter how well you hide them, artists use all the options, so there is always a maintenance cost (which is not only limited to code side, but also communication with artists).

The extra annoying part in the Cycles kernel is also that unused code paths could affect performance on GPU, so we always look at those with extra care.

Is it possible to limit options to 2: RIS (the officially used one) and some simple implementation to help nailing down issues between Cycles side, OpenPGL side, and weight computation for the guiding?

Also, to confirm, all the changes are purely within surrounding __PATH_GUIDING__ ifdef, so no changes for the current GPUs? (is just something that is not so trivially visible from the diff, so wanted to confirm with you).

Btw, I've also notice you're using std::isfinite. This would not work on all devices/compilers we support as we use -fast-math. The portable way to do so in Cycles is isnan_safe and isfinite_safe.

Thanks for the updates. The point about the non-existing ideal algorithm applies to other areas of 3d software as well. It is fine to have extra options during development and feedback period, but for the final merge we really try hard to avoid adding them. As you've said, no matter how well you hide them, artists use all the options, so there is always a maintenance cost (which is not only limited to code side, but also communication with artists). The extra annoying part in the Cycles kernel is also that unused code paths could affect performance on GPU, so we always look at those with extra care. Is it possible to limit options to 2: RIS (the officially used one) and some simple implementation to help nailing down issues between Cycles side, OpenPGL side, and weight computation for the guiding? Also, to confirm, all the changes are purely within surrounding `__PATH_GUIDING__` ifdef, so no changes for the current GPUs? (is just something that is not so trivially visible from the diff, so wanted to confirm with you). Btw, I've also notice you're using `std::isfinite`. This would not work on all devices/compilers we support as we use `-fast-math`. The portable way to do so in Cycles is `isnan_safe` and `isfinite_safe`.
Sergey Sharybin requested review from Sergey Sharybin 2023-05-11 14:32:53 +02:00

We talked with Sebastian outside of the code review page.

The important point I understand is that we might want to come back to the MIS/Roughness approaches later on.
We also confirmed all the current changes do not affect current GPU code at all.

The WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG idea seems interesting, but might be better to handle it separately from this patch.

So that pretty much resolves majority of my questions :)

The remaining code aspect I've noted is the finite/nan story. To me it seems easier to just use our "safe" variants, and safe hair-pulling later on.

Sebastian mentioned some cleanup is still planned, so I'll wait for the patch to leave the WIP state to do the final pass of review :)

We talked with Sebastian outside of the code review page. The important point I understand is that we might want to come back to the MIS/Roughness approaches later on. We also confirmed all the current changes do not affect current GPU code at all. The `WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG` idea seems interesting, but might be better to handle it separately from this patch. So that pretty much resolves majority of my questions :) The remaining code aspect I've noted is the finite/nan story. To me it seems easier to just use our "safe" variants, and safe hair-pulling later on. Sebastian mentioned some cleanup is still planned, so I'll wait for the patch to leave the WIP state to do the final pass of review :)
Author
Member

@blender-bot package

@blender-bot package
Member

Package build started. Download here when ready.

Package build started. [Download here](https://builder.blender.org/download/patch/PR107782) when ready.
Sebastian Herholz force-pushed cycles_path_guiding_RIS from 9a62522681 to aea5dc6ab9 2023-05-15 13:26:08 +02:00 Compare
Author
Member

@blender-bot package

@blender-bot package
Member

Package build started. Download here when ready.

Package build started. [Download here](https://builder.blender.org/download/patch/PR107782) when ready.
Sebastian Herholz force-pushed cycles_path_guiding_RIS from aea5dc6ab9 to 2f30bd90b1 2023-05-15 16:05:47 +02:00 Compare
Author
Member

@blender-bot package

@blender-bot package
Member

Package build started. Download here when ready.

Package build started. [Download here](https://builder.blender.org/download/patch/PR107782) when ready.
Sebastian Herholz changed title from WIP: Path Guiding: Adding guiding on glossy surfaces via RIS to Path Guiding: Adding guiding on glossy surfaces via RIS 2023-05-15 16:06:26 +02:00
Sergey Sharybin reviewed 2023-05-15 16:24:43 +02:00
@ -14,0 +37,4 @@
Spectrum eval{zero_spectrum()};
};
ccl_device_forceinline bool calculate_ris_target(ccl_private GuidingRISSample *risSample,

We use snake style for variables, so ris_sample .

We use snake style for variables, so `ris_sample `.
Author
Member

Done

Done
brecht marked this conversation as resolved
@ -67,3 +98,2 @@
/* Init guiding (diffuse BSDFs only for now). */
if (!(diffuse_sampling_fraction > 0.0f &&
guiding_bsdf_init(kg, state, sd->P, sd->N, rand_bsdf_guiding)))
if (!fully_opaque || avg_roughness < guiding_roughness_threshold * guiding_roughness_threshold ||

Units seems a bit odd: comparison of toughness with roughness^2. Is this expected?

Units seems a bit odd: comparison of toughness with roughness^2. Is this expected?
Author
Member

This is due to the fact that Blender/Cycles uses roughness^2 internally and squared roughness returns alpha.x * alpha.y so it is actually (roughness^2)^2 compared to the user input.
I refactored everything to make this more clear and convert the guiding_roughness_threshold to be guiding_roughness_threshold^2.

This is due to the fact that Blender/Cycles uses `roughness^2` internally and squared roughness returns `alpha.x * alpha.y` so it is actually `(roughness^2)^2` compared to the user input. I refactored everything to make this more clear and convert the `guiding_roughness_threshold` to be `guiding_roughness_threshold^2`.
brecht marked this conversation as resolved
@ -532,0 +712,4 @@
sum_ris_weights += risSamples[1].ris_weight;
num_ris_candidates++;
}
kernel_assert(sum_ris_weights >= 0.0f);

Should this be instead kernel_assert(risSamples[1].ris_weight >= 0.0f) ?
Otherwise if the first RIS sample weight is 0.5, and the second RIS sample is -0.1 we will not catch the issue with this assert.

Should this be instead `kernel_assert(risSamples[1].ris_weight >= 0.0f)` ? Otherwise if the first RIS sample weight is 0.5, and the second RIS sample is -0.1 we will not catch the issue with this assert.
Author
Member

I agree, I changed it to test in both cases for the ris_weight as well

I agree, I changed it to test in both cases for the `ris_weight` as well
brecht marked this conversation as resolved
@ -532,0 +806,4 @@
unguided_bsdf_pdf,
sampled_roughness,
eta);
# if 0

Is it intended for the merge?

Is it intended for the merge?
Author
Member

It is mainly there to be able to validate the label, roughness and eta estimation.
this will be useful when the BSDF models change (e.g., after Principle_v2).

Do you have a better idea or suggestion?

It is mainly there to be able to validate the label, roughness and eta estimation. this will be useful when the BSDF models change (e.g., after Principle_v2). Do you have a better idea or suggestion?

Not really, was just curious if it is something left over from earlier development, or still intended to be useful for debugging.

One idea could be to use #ifdef WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG, but not really sure.

Not really, was just curious if it is something left over from earlier development, or still intended to be useful for debugging. One idea could be to use `#ifdef WITH_CYCLES_DEBUG`, but not really sure.

I think it's fine as is, but could use a comment.

I think it's fine as is, but could use a comment.
Author
Member

done

done
Author
Member

done

done
Brecht Van Lommel reviewed 2023-05-15 16:59:35 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel left a comment
Owner

The overall logic and code organization seems reasonable.

It would be nice to do a refactor at some point after this to make a struct like BsdfSample and reduce the number of individual arguments and variables used in code like this.

The overall logic and code organization seems reasonable. It would be nice to do a refactor at some point after this to make a struct like `BsdfSample` and reduce the number of individual arguments and variables used in code like this.
@ -532,0 +691,4 @@
risSamples[1].bsdf_pdf = surface_shader_bsdf_eval_pdfs(
kg, sd, risSamples[1].wo, &risSamples[1].bsdf_eval, unguided_bsdf_pdfs, 0);
risSamples[1].label = risSamples[0].label;
risSamples[1].avg_bsdf_eval = (risSamples[1].bsdf_eval.sum[0] +

Use average()

Use `average()`
Author
Member

Done

Done
sherholz marked this conversation as resolved
Author
Member

@Sergey I switched to the safe checks and polished the code a little bet.
It is ready for your final review now ;)

@Sergey I switched to the safe checks and polished the code a little bet. It is ready for your final review now ;)

@sherholz Thanks for the update! There seems to be some out-of-order comments: we checked on the updated code and think the final round of comments is there already :)

@sherholz Thanks for the update! There seems to be some out-of-order comments: we checked on the updated code and think the final round of comments is there already :)

@blender-bot package

@blender-bot package
Member

Package build started. Download here when ready.

Package build started. [Download here](https://builder.blender.org/download/patch/PR107782) when ready.
Brecht Van Lommel requested changes 2023-05-16 13:54:56 +02:00
Brecht Van Lommel left a comment
Owner

Only thing I would like to see change still is bumping the minimum OpenPGL version.

After that this is ok to go into main for 4.0 (in two days from now).

Only thing I would like to see change still is bumping the minimum OpenPGL version. After that this is ok to go into main for 4.0 (in two days from now).
Author
Member

Only thing I would like to see change still is bumping the minimum OpenPGL version.

After that this is ok to go into main for 4.0 (in two days from now).

@brecht bumping the version is on my list.
I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated:
#104895

But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR?
This would also give me the chance to clean up the code and remove older version checks separately.

When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6?

> Only thing I would like to see change still is bumping the minimum OpenPGL version. > > After that this is ok to go into main for 4.0 (in two days from now). @brecht bumping the version is on my list. I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated: https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/104895 But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR? This would also give me the chance to clean up the code and remove older version checks separately. When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6?

I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated:
#104895

It's done already, all platforms have OpenPGL 0.5.

But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR?

Ok, it can be done in a separate PR too.

When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6?

Yes, I'd rather not make any bigger changes in 3.6 anymore this close to bcon3.

> I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated: > https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/104895 It's done already, all platforms have OpenPGL 0.5. > But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR? Ok, it can be done in a separate PR too. > When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6? Yes, I'd rather not make any bigger changes in 3.6 anymore this close to bcon3.
Brecht Van Lommel approved these changes 2023-05-16 15:50:02 +02:00
Author
Member

I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated:
#104895

It's done already, all platforms have OpenPGL 0.5.

Ahh OK, I wasn't sure since there are still to points missing:
Add Package file to SVN
and
Update install_linux_packages script

But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR?

Ok, it can be done in a separate PR too.

I will start preparing a separate one as soon as this PR is merged.

When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6?

Yes, I'd rather not make any bigger changes in 3.6 anymore this close to bcon3.

I completely understand. I just asked so that I can forward the info to the community in the thread.
For 4.0 I will probably also cover translucent materials and have better support for equi-angular sampling.

> > I am pretty much waiting dependency builder and svns to be updated: > > https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/104895 > > It's done already, all platforms have OpenPGL 0.5. > Ahh OK, I wasn't sure since there are still to points missing: `Add Package file to SVN` and `Update install_linux_packages script` > > But don't you think that would fit better in a separate PR? > > Ok, it can be done in a separate PR too. I will start preparing a separate one as soon as this PR is merged. > > When you mean 4.0 I assume we are too late for 3.6? > > Yes, I'd rather not make any bigger changes in 3.6 anymore this close to bcon3. > I completely understand. I just asked so that I can forward the info to the community in the thread. For 4.0 I will probably also cover translucent materials and have better support for equi-angular sampling.

Great, thanks.

Great, thanks.
Sebastian Herholz force-pushed cycles_path_guiding_RIS from 9709cd2348 to 6cce149144 2023-05-22 16:36:37 +02:00 Compare
Sebastian Herholz added 1 commit 2023-05-22 16:45:52 +02:00
Sebastian Herholz merged commit 8d17458569 into main 2023-05-22 16:47:10 +02:00
Howard Trickey referenced this issue from a commit 2023-05-29 02:51:38 +02:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset System
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Asset Browser Project
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#107782
No description provided.