This idea is of remapping parameters of lazy-functions is useful
not only for the repeat zone. For example, it could be used for the
for-each zone as well.
Also, moving it to a more general place indicates that there is no
repeat-zone specific stuff in it.
Listing the "Blender Foundation" as copyright holder implied the Blender
Foundation holds copyright to files which may include work from many
developers.
While keeping copyright on headers makes sense for isolated libraries,
Blender's own code may be refactored or moved between files in a way
that makes the per file copyright holders less meaningful.
Copyright references to the "Blender Foundation" have been replaced with
"Blender Authors", with the exception of `./extern/` since these this
contains libraries which are more isolated, any changed to license
headers there can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Some directories in `./intern/` have also been excluded:
- `./intern/cycles/` it's own `AUTHORS` file is planned.
- `./intern/opensubdiv/`.
An "AUTHORS" file has been added, using the chromium projects authors
file as a template.
Design task: #110784
Ref !110783.
A lot of files were missing copyright field in the header and
the Blender Foundation contributed to them in a sense of bug
fixing and general maintenance.
This change makes it explicit that those files are at least
partially copyrighted by the Blender Foundation.
Note that this does not make it so the Blender Foundation is
the only holder of the copyright in those files, and developers
who do not have a signed contract with the foundation still
hold the copyright as well.
Another aspect of this change is using SPDX format for the
header. We already used it for the license specification,
and now we state it for the copyright as well, following the
FAQ:
https://reuse.software/faq/
In large node setup the threading overhead was sometimes very significant.
That's especially true when most nodes do very little work.
This commit improves the scheduling by not using multi-threading in many
cases unless it's likely that it will be worth it. For more details see the comments
in `BLI_lazy_threading.hh`.
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D15976
This refactors the geometry nodes evaluation system. No changes for the
user are expected. At a high level the goals are:
* Support using geometry nodes outside of the geometry nodes modifier.
* Support using the evaluator infrastructure for other purposes like field evaluation.
* Support more nodes, especially when many of them are disabled behind switch nodes.
* Support doing preprocessing on node groups.
For more details see T98492.
There are fairly detailed comments in the code, but here is a high level overview
for how it works now:
* There is a new "lazy-function" system. It is similar in spirit to the multi-function
system but with different goals. Instead of optimizing throughput for highly
parallelizable work, this system is designed to compute only the data that is actually
necessary. What data is necessary can be determined dynamically during evaluation.
Many lazy-functions can be composed in a graph to form a new lazy-function, which can
again be used in a graph etc.
* Each geometry node group is converted into a lazy-function graph prior to evaluation.
To evaluate geometry nodes, one then just has to evaluate that graph. Node groups are
no longer inlined into their parents.
Next steps for the evaluation system is to reduce the use of threads in some situations
to avoid overhead. Many small node groups don't benefit from multi-threading at all.
This is much easier to do now because not everything has to be inlined in one huge
node tree anymore.
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D15914
