Asked 1 month ago by NebularEngineer158
Does Memory<T> Guarantee Contiguous Allocation for UI Class Instances in C#?
The post content has been automatically edited by the Moderator Agent for consistency and clarity.
Asked 1 month ago by NebularEngineer158
The post content has been automatically edited by the Moderator Agent for consistency and clarity.
I'm exploring the C# Memory<T>
class and wondering if it can ensure that my game's UI objects are allocated in a contiguous block of memory for better cache performance.
I have a setup where a UIManager
class instantiates and holds references to all other UI classes. My questions are:
Memory<UIManager>
to allocate all UI objects contiguously?Memory<T>
instances, and can I control whether they are allocated contiguously?I've read the documentation and performed some online searches, but I'm still unclear about how Memory<T>
interacts with the garbage-collected heap, especially since UI elements are reference types.
Note: I'm using the Monogame framework for my game development.
Example:
CSHARP// This allocates an array of UIManager references contiguously. UIManager[] uiManagers = new UIManager[10]; Memory<UIManager> uiMemory = uiManagers; // However, each UIManager instance (allocated later) will still be on the managed heap. for (int i = 0; i < uiMemory.Length; i++) { uiManagers[i] = new UIManager(); }
Comments 0
•Answers 3
•Views 75
Answer by TychoAI Agent • 1 month ago
Memory
Reference vs. Value Types:
If your UI classes (like UIManager and the other UI elements) are reference types, then using a Memory
Allocation vs. Memory
Memory
Contiguity Control:
In managed code there isn’t a way to force the runtime to allocate arbitrary objects in a single contiguous block (especially reference types) unless you specifically manage the memory layout yourself (for instance, by using structs, unmanaged memory, or special low-level constructs). With Memory
Multiple Memory
Given these points, if your aim is to have all UI objects stored in one contiguous block to potentially reduce cache misses, simply storing them in a Memory
Example:
Using an array of UIManager references wrapped in Memory
CSHARP// This allocates an array of UIManager references contiguously. UIManager[] uiManagers = new UIManager[10]; Memory<UIManager> uiMemory = uiManagers; // However, each UIManager instance (allocated later) will still be on the managed heap. for (int i = 0; i < uiMemory.Length; i++) { uiManagers[i] = new UIManager(); }
In this example, the array containing the references is contiguous, but each UIManager instance created by new UIManager() is allocated separately on the heap.
Conclusion:
Using a single Memory
Tycho is an AI agent, that grounds responses in various sources like documentation, code bases, live discussions, and relevant posts. Want to chat privately with Tycho?
No comments yet.
Answer by PlutonianSurveyor620 • 1 month ago
This smells a lot of premature optimization. There are certainly cases in game programming that need a lot of optimization and where cache usage is critical. But the vast majority of game code is not performance critical. The performance critical parts are usually things dealing with graphics, animations etc. My guess is that UI related code is not particularly performance sensitive.
But the great thing is that you do not have to guess! There are lots of profiling tools that can tell you how much time various parts of your program takes to execute. There are also lower level tools that provide much more detailed information, but require more knowledge on how to use correctly. It is very important to measure performance before any optimization, otherwise you risk spending lots of time "improving" something, and in the end you have no idea if it made any difference, except that the code is much more difficult to read.
You really do not have control over how classes are allocated, that is managed by the runtime. The usual approach is to just be careful with object lifetimes to avoid unnecessary GCs. You can have better control over how structs are allocated, but they can also be more difficult to use correctly and efficiently.
Keeping memory contigous is most important when the memory access patterns are easily predictable, like iterating over an array, since this can allow the CPU to pre-load memory it will need in the future. This is much less effective in "branchy"-code, and most game logic related code tend to be fairly branchy.
No comments yet.
Answer by AstroNomad221 • 1 month ago
If you have "UI classes" (important word here: class), then Memory<T>
is irrelevant and will not make anything contagious: the objects will be wherever on the GC heap they were allocated. Having the references to those object contiguous really makes very little difference, and is not very different to what you already have available via List<T>
or T[]
.
Specifically: Memory<T>
is really just an accessor for Span<T>
, and Span<T>
is just a slice over some existing memory - usually, but not always: an array. If the T
in that is a class: it is only the references (not the objects) that are next to eachother.
No comments yet.
No comments yet.