Geometry Nodes: Blur node speed up #109764
@ -197,27 +197,30 @@ static void build_face_to_face_by_edge_map(const OffsetIndices<int> polys,
|
||||
Array<int> &r_offsets,
|
||||
Array<int> &r_indices)
|
||||
{
|
||||
Array<int> edge_to_poly_offsets;
|
||||
Array<int> edge_to_poly_offset_data;
|
||||
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Outdated
|
||||
Array<int> edge_to_poly_indices;
|
||||
const GroupedSpan<int> edge_to_poly_map = bke::mesh::build_edge_to_poly_map(
|
||||
polys, corner_edges, edges_num, edge_to_poly_offsets, edge_to_poly_indices);
|
||||
polys, corner_edges, edges_num, edge_to_poly_offset_data, edge_to_poly_indices);
|
||||
const OffsetIndices<int> edge_to_poly_offsets(edge_to_poly_offset_data);
|
||||
|
||||
r_offsets = Array<int>(polys.size() + 1, 0);
|
||||
for (const int poly_i : polys.index_range()) {
|
||||
for (const int edge : corner_edges.slice(polys[poly_i])) {
|
||||
for (const int neighbor : edge_to_poly_map[edge]) {
|
||||
if (neighbor != poly_i) {
|
||||
r_offsets[poly_i]++;
|
||||
}
|
||||
threading::parallel_for(polys.index_range(), 4096, [&](const IndexRange range) {
|
||||
for (const int poly_i : range) {
|
||||
for (const int edge : corner_edges.slice(polys[poly_i])) {
|
||||
/* Subtract polygon itself from the number of polygons connected to the edge. */
|
||||
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Outdated
Hans Goudey
commented
` /* Subtract polygon itself from the number of polygons connected to the edge. */`
|
||||
r_offsets[poly_i] += edge_to_poly_offsets[edge].size() - 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
const OffsetIndices offsets = offset_indices::accumulate_counts_to_offsets(r_offsets);
|
||||
});
|
||||
const OffsetIndices<int> offsets = offset_indices::accumulate_counts_to_offsets(r_offsets);
|
||||
r_indices.reinitialize(offsets.total_size());
|
||||
|
||||
mod_moder marked this conversation as resolved
Outdated
Hans Goudey
commented
I'm not sure about adding these early returns. I'm not sure it would help performance for the expected case (which isn't where many faces have no neighbors) I'm not sure about adding these early returns. I'm not sure it would help performance for the expected case (which isn't where many faces have no neighbors)
Iliya Katushenock
commented
Yes, it would be strange to have such an option .. But on the other hand, maybe? Yes, it would be strange to have such an option .. But on the other hand, maybe?
Hans Goudey
commented
It's fine to optimize the node for the expected case. Without some measurements demonstrating these returns improve performance, I'd rather leave them to a separate commit I guess It's fine to optimize the node for the expected case. Without some measurements demonstrating these returns improve performance, I'd rather leave them to a separate commit I guess
|
||||
threading::parallel_for(polys.index_range(), 1024, [&](IndexRange range) {
|
||||
for (const int poly_i : range) {
|
||||
MutableSpan<int> neighbors = r_indices.as_mutable_span().slice(offsets[poly_i]);
|
||||
if (neighbors.is_empty()) {
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
int count = 0;
|
||||
for (const int edge : corner_edges.slice(polys[poly_i])) {
|
||||
for (const int neighbor : edge_to_poly_map[edge]) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
offsets_data
->offset_data