# Optimize the Buddhabrot

I am currently working on my own implementation of the Buddhabrot. So far I am using the std::thread-class from C++11 to concurrently work through the following iteration:

void iterate(float *res){
//generate starting point
std::default_random_engine generator;
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> distribution(-1.5,1.5);

double ReC,ImC;
double ReS,ImS,ReS_;
unsigned int steps;

unsigned int visitedPos[maxCalcIter];

unsigned int succSamples(0);

//iterate over it
steps = 0;
ReC = distribution(generator)-0.4;
ImC = distribution(generator);
double p(sqrt((ReC-0.25)*(ReC-0.25) + ImC*ImC));
while (( ((ReC+1)*(ReC+1) + ImC*ImC) < 0.0625) || (ReC < p - 2*p*p + 0.25)){
ReC = distribution(generator)-0.4;
ImC = distribution(generator);
p = sqrt((ReC-0.25)*(ReC-0.25) + ImC*ImC);
}
ReS = ReC;
ImS = ImC;
for (unsigned int j = maxCalcIter; (ReS*ReS + ImS*ImS < 4)&&(j--); ){
ReS_ = ReS;
ReS *= ReS;
ReS += ReC - ImS*ImS;
ImS *= 2*ReS_;
ImS += ImC;
if ((ReS+0.5)*(ReS+0.5) + ImS*ImS < 4){
visitedPos[steps] = int((ReS+2.5)*0.25*outputSize)*outputSize + int((ImS+2)*0.25*outputSize);

}
steps++;

}
if ((steps > minCalcIter)&&(ReS*ReS + ImS*ImS > 4)){
succSamples++;
for (int j = steps; j--;){
//std::cout << visitedPos[j] << std::endl;
res[visitedPos[j]]++;
}
}
}
}


These are my declarations and main():

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <random>
#include <vector>

#define outputSize 20000

#define maxCalcIter 60000
#define minCalcIter 40000

//iterate function

int main(){
float *outImg = new float[outputSize*outputSize];

for (int i = numThreads; i--; ){
}
t.join();
}

return 0;
}


I am basically working in every thread so long that I generated enough trajectories of sufficient length which in expectation takes the same time in every thread.

But I really have the feeling that this function might me very unoptimized since its code is so very readable. Can anybody come up with some fancy optimizations? When it comes to compiling I just use:

g++ -O4 -std=c++11 -I/usr/include/OpenEXR/ -L/usr/lib64/ -lHalf -lIlmImf -lm buddha_cpu.cpp -o buddha_cpu

Any hints on crunching some more numbers/sec would be really appreciated. Also, any links to further literature are totally welcome.

Instead of talking about the algorithm, I will review what can be done better even if I don't understand the algorithm. Actually, I will review what can be done better so that I can understand the algorithm:

• First of all, don't use macros to define your constants. Since you are using C++11, you can make them constexpr variables instead and use them as array indices too if needed:

constexpr unsigned int outputSize = 20000;
constexpr unsigned int samplesPerThread = 5000;
constexpr unsigned int numThreads = 16;

constexpr unsigned int maxCalcIter = 60000;
constexpr unsigned int minCalcIter = 40000;

• You are using std::sqrt but your forgot to include the header <cmath>. While it has probably been included by some other header, it is not guaranteed by the standard thus not including it may cause your program to fail to compile with some implementations.

• By the way, try to always std::-qualify the functions from the standard library. Unless you are explicitly using argument-dependent lookup of course.

• This line is not really readable:

for (unsigned int j = maxCalcIter; (ReS*ReS + ImS*ImS < 4)&&(j--); ){


It would be better as:

for (unsigned int j = maxCalcIter; (ReS*ReS + ImS*ImS < 4) && (j > 0); --j){


You may have heard that iterating from max to zero is faster, but in most of the cases, this is at best a micro-optimization. The "natural" ordering is from 0 to max and that's what readers will expect. Generally speaking, choosing a good algorithm and good data structures will help you more than micro-optimizing. Worse: if micro-optimizations are done too early when they are not needed, it will hinder readability.

Considering that step is incremented for each iteration of the loop, you can put the incrementation in the for too:

for (unsigned int j = 0 ;
(ReS*ReS + ImS*ImS < 4) && (j < maxCalcIter) ;
++j, ++steps)
{ /* ... */ }

• By the way, with modern caches and processors, iterating forward may be significantly faster than iterating backwards if your iterator is used to access memory. Therefore, I expect the last loop of your function to be faster (and more readable) if you iterate forward instead of backwards since the index j is actually used to access memory.

• Now, let's see your main function too: if you don't write any return statement in main, the compiler will automagically add return 0;. Unless you also intend to return error codes, not writing return 0; may be a way of documenting that your program cannot return error codes.

• You are allocating memory manually in the following line:

float *outImg = new float[outputSize*outputSize];


You should avoid manually allocating memory since it can lead to memory leaks if you forget to delete it later (hint: your forgot). You can always use an std::vector to create a dynamic array and you can access its underlying memory thanks to the method data().

Even better: you know the size of the allocated memory at compile-time. Therefore, you can use an std::array instead. This class allocates its memory on the stack, which means that iteration and some other operations may be faster. Avoid using one if your array is so big that it could blow the stack though (well, in your case, I guess that it would blow the stack).

• You are using threads.push_back(std::thread(/* ... */)) to create new threads and add them to threads. You can use emplace_back to create them directly into the vector instead. Your code will even be shorter:

threads.emplace_back(/* ... */);

• The emplace_back method looks like something neat. But I was more or less looking for some arithemtical or conceptual optimizations. But your answer gave me some nice insights, too. – Labello Dec 17 '14 at 22:51
• @Labello I know, but what I am trying to explain is that people will have less problem reasoning about the algorithm itself if the code around is readable, bug-free and idiomatic. That's the whole point of my answer :) – Morwenn Dec 17 '14 at 22:52

Try recomputing the trajectories when updating the image rather than storing them in visitedPos. The arithmetic is only a handful of CPU instructions but saving the results incurs a lot of memory accesses, which are wasted if the round is unsuccessful.