if (threadIdx.x < 128) {
float reg[32];
// do something with reg...
} else {
return;
}
let's say each block has 256 threads, but only half of the threads are using registers, and the other half is doing something else (in this case nothing). my question is, how many registers this thread block will use (only concidering reg)? 32 * 256 or 32 * 128 ?
All threads use the same number of registers.
It is a compile-time decision, the decision has nothing to do with runtime behavior, and the compiler determines register usage for all threads in the grid (i.e. kernel launch), it is not in any way decided per thread. At runtime, the necessary number of registers must be allocated for each thread, whether they "use" them or not. See here.
The answer to your question is that regardless of what the threads "do", the number of registers per block is equal to the number of registers per thread (determined at compile time) times the number of threads per block.
So in your example it would presumably be 32*256, not 32*128.
Related
I ran into a problem for understanding the logic behind "the last warp loop unrolling" technique in Nvidia's parallel reduction tutorial available here.
In case of thread31 (for which tid=31), before unrolling the loop:
this thread only executes these operations:
sdata[31] += sdata[31+64]
sdata[31] += sdata[31+32]
But after the loop unrolling (as shown below):
The condition if(tid < 32) becomes true for thread31 and the warpReduce function will be executed for it and therefore all these operations which wouldn't be executed in the unrolled loop version will be executed now:
sdata[31] += sdata[31+32] //for second time
sdata[31] += sdata[31+16]
...
sdata[31] += sdata[31+1]
What's the logic behind it?
First:
sdata[31] += sdata[31+32] //for second time
No, that's not the case, it doesn't get executed a second time. The loop terminates when the s variable is shifted right from 64 to 32, and the body of the loop is not executed for s=32. Therefore the above statement is not executed during the body of the loop, because that would imply s=32, which is excluded by the loop termination condition.
Now, on to your question. It's true there is a behavioral difference between the two cases, however the only result that matters at the end is sdata[0] and this behavioral difference does not affect the results calculation for sdata[0]. So the only thing left would be "does it matter for performance?"
I don't have an answer for you, but I doubt it would make a significant difference. In the non-warp-reduce case, at each loop iteration there is a shift-right operation on a register variable, followed by a test, followed by a predicated set of shared memory instructions. In the warp-reduce case, there is some extra shared memory load/store activity and add arithmetic, but no shift arithmetic or testing per reduction step.
With respect to the extra load/store activity, the only portion of this that matters is the portion that will reach "above" the warp range (i.e. 0-31). There is extra shared loading activity going on here. The extra store activity and extra add arithmetic is irrelevant, because constraining these operations to less than a single warp is not any better performance-wise (this point is covered in the presentation itself, "We don’t need if (tid < s) because it doesn’t save any
work"). So the only consideration here is the once-per-step "extra" read of shared memory, one additional transaction, basically, per step. Against that we have the shifting, conditional test, and predication.
I don't know which is faster, but my guess as to the "logic" would be:
The difference would be small. Shared memory pressure is unlikely to be an issue at this point in this code.
The person who wrote it either didn't consider this at all, or considered it and decided it was probably so trivial as to be not worthy of cluttering a presentation that is really focused on other things, and will be read by many people.
EDIT: Based on comments, there appears to still be some question about my claim that the behavioral difference does not affect the results calculdation for sdata[0].
First, let's acknowledge that the only item we care about at the end is sdata[0]. sdata[1] or any other "result" is irrelevant for this discussion.
Let's make an observation about which thread calculations matter, at each step. We can observe that at a given step in the final-warp reduction, the only threads that matter (i.e. that can have an effect on the final value in sdata[0]) are those that are less then the offset value:
sdata[tid] += sdata[tid + offset]; // where offset is 32, then 16, then 8, etc.
Why is this? In order to understand that, we need to understand 2 things. First, we must understand at this point that there is an expectation of warp-synchronous behavior. This is already identified in the presentation (slide 21) as a necessary precondition to convert the loop reduction to the unrolled final warp reduction. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the definition of warp-synchronous, but it essentially means we are depending on the warp to execute in lockstep. A warp is 32 threads, and it means that when one thread is executing a particular instruction, every thread in the warp is executing that instruction, at that point in the instruction stream. Second, we need to carefully decompose the above line to understand the sequence of operations. The above line of C++ code will decompose into the following pseudo-machine-language code that the GPU is actually executing:
LD R0, sdata[tid]
LD R1, sdata[tid+offset]
ADD R3, R2, R1
ST sdata[tid], R3
In english, at each step in the final warp unrolled reduction, each thread will load its sdata[tid] value, then each thread will load its sdata[tid+offset] value, then each thread will add those 2 values together, then each thread will store the result. Because the warp is executing in lockstep at this point, when each thread loads its sdata[tid] value, it means that every thread is loading its respective value, at that instruction cycle/clock cycle, i.e. at that instant.
now, lets revisit the overall operation. At the point in the sequence where we have:
sdata[tid] += sdata[tid + 16];
how can we justify the statement that the only threads here that matter are those whose tid value is less than the offset? The first thing each thread does is load sdata[tid]. Then each thread loads sdata[tid+16]. So at this point, threads 0-15 have loaded their own value, plus the values from locations 16-31. Threads 16-31 have loaded their own value, plus the values from locations 32-47. Then all 32 threads perform the addition, then all 32 threads perform the store operation. So thread 16, which also picked up the value from location 32, did not update the location 16 value until after the previous value at location 16 had been consumed (by thread 0 in this case). So the behavior of threads 16-31 at this point have no impact on the value computed for thread 0.
We can repeat the above process to show that for each offset, the threads whose indexes lie at or above the offset have no impact on the calculation for thread 0.
We allocate and free many memory blocks. We use Memory Heap. However, heap access is costly.
For faster memory access allocation and freeing, we adopt a global Free List. As we make a multithreaded program, the Free List is protected by a Critical Section. However, Critical Section causes a bottleneck in parallelism.
For removing the Critical Section, we assign a Free List for each thread, i.e. Thread Local Storage. However, thread T1 always memory blocks and thread T2 always frees them, so Free List in thread T2 is always increasing, meanwhile there is no benefit of Free List.
Despite of the bottleneck of Critical Section, we adopt the Critical Section again, with some different method. We prepare several Free Lists as well as Critical Sections which is assigned to each Free List, thus 0~N-1 Free Lists and 0~N-1 Critical Sections. We prepare an atomic-operated integer value which mutates to 0, 1, 2, ... N-1 then 0, 1, 2, ... again. For each allocation and freeing, we get the integer value X, then mutate it, access X-th Critical Section, then access X-th Free List. However, this is quite slower than the previous method (using Thread Local Storage). Atomic operation is quite slow as there are more threads.
As mutating the integer value non-atomically cause no corruption, we did the mutation in non-atomic way. However, as the integer value is sometimes stale, there is many chance of accessing the same Critical Section and Free List by different threads. This causes the bottleneck again, though it is quite few than the previous method.
Instead of the integer value, we used thread ID with hashing to the range (0~N-1), then the performance got better.
I guess there must be much better way of doing this, but I cannot find an exact one. Are there any ideas for improving what we have made?
Dealing with heap memory is a task for the OS. Nothing guarantees you can do a better/faster job than the OS does.
But there are some conditions where you can get a bit of improvement, specially when you know something about your memory usage that is unknown to the OS.
I'm writting here my untested idea, hope you'll get some profit of it.
Let's say you have T threads, all of them reserving and freeing memory. The main goal is speed, so I'll try not to use TLS, nor critical blocking, not atomic ops.
If (repeat: if, if, if) the app can fit to several discrete sizes of memory blocks (not random sizes, so as to avoid fragmentation and unuseful holes) then start asking the OS for a number of these discrete blocks.
For example, you have an array of n1 blocks each of size size1, an array of n2 blocks each of size size2, an array of n3... and so on. Each array is bidimensional, the second field just stores a flag for used/free block. If your arrays are very large then it's better to use a dedicated array for the flags (due to contiguous memory usage is always faster).
Now, some one asks for a block of memory of size sB. A specialized function (or object or whatever) searches the array of blocks of size greater or equal to sB, and then selects a block by looking at the used/free flag. Just before ending this task the proper block-flag is set to "used".
When two or more threads ask for blocks of the same size there may be a corruption of the flag. Using TLS will solve this issue, and critical blocking too. I think you can set a bool flag at the beggining of the search into flags-array, that makes the other threads to wait until the flag changes, which only happens after the block-flag changes. With pseudo code:
MemoryGetter(sB)
{
//select which array depending of 'sB'
for (i=0, i < numOfarrays, i++)
if (sizeOfArr(i) >= sB)
arrMatch = i
break //exit for
//wait if other thread wants a block from the same arrMatch array
while ( searching(arrMatch) == true )
; //wait
//blocks other threads wanting a block from the same arrMatch array
searching(arrMatch) = true
//Get the first free block
for (i=0, i < numOfBlocks, i++)
if ( arrOfUsed(arrMatch, i) != true )
selectedBlock = addressOf(....)
//mark the block as used
arrOfUsed(arrMatch, i) = true
break; //exit for
//Allow other threads
searching(arrMatch) = false
return selectedBlock //NOTE: selectedBlock==NULL means no free block
}
Freeing a block is easier, just mark it as free, no thread concurrency issue.
Dealing with no free blocks is up to you (wait, use a bigger block, ask OS for more, etc).
Note that the whole memory is reserved from the OS at app start, which can be a problem.
If this idea makes your app faster, let me know. What I can say for sure is that memory used is greater than if you use normal OS request; but not much if you choose "good" sizes, those most used.
Some improvements can be done:
Cache the last freeded block (per size) so as to avoid the search.
Start with not that much blocks, and ask the OS for more memory only
when needed. Play with 'number of blocks' for each size depending on
your app. Find the optimal case.
I've wondered about the amount of bits that a given CPU can handles and how should I manage to calculate this specific value.
I wanted to make sure that my thought and also my calculation are right.
Given that I have 64 bit CPU which feature 2.3 Ghz. The amount of bits that being handled per second should be the following :
(2.3 * 10^9) * 64
Is it that simple or I need consider any other variables?
Calculating throughput of a CPU is not as simple. Modern CPUs are pipelined and can execute multiple instructions concurrently if there are no data dependencies, yielding instructions per cycle (IPC) > 1. Some instructions may also have a higher latency than one cycle, meaning IPC can be < 1.
For some operations they might be constrained by memory bandwidth.
And then there are SIMD instructions which can process more data per instruction than the width of a single general purpose register.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_pipelining
It's my understanding that if two threads are reading from the same piece of memory, and no thread is writing to that memory, then the operation is safe. However, I'm not sure what happens if one thread is reading and the other is writing. What would happen? Is the result undefined? Or would the read just be stale? If a stale read is not a concern is it ok to have unsynchronized read-write to a variable? Or is it possible the data would be corrupted, and neither the read nor the write would be correct and one should always synchronize in this case?
I want to say that I've learned it is the later case, that a race on memory access leaves the state undefined... but I don't remember where I may have learned that and I'm having a hard time finding the answer on google. My intuition is that a variable is operated on in registers, and that true (as in hardware) concurrency is impossible (or is it), so that the worst that could happen is stale data, i.e. the following:
WriteThread: copy value from memory to register
WriteThread: update value in register
ReadThread: copy value of memory to register
WriteThread: write new value to memory
At which point the read thread has stale data.
Usually memory is read or written in atomic units determined by the CPU architecture (32 bit and 64 bits item aligned on 32 bit and 64 bit boundaries is common these days).
In this case, what happens depends on the amount of data being written.
Let's consider the case of 32 bit atomic read/write cells.
If two threads write 32 bits into such an aligned cell, then it is absolutely well defined what happens: one of the two written values is retained. Unfortunately for you (well, the program), you don't know which value. By extremely clever programming, you can actually use this atomicity of reads and writes to build synchronization algorithms (e.g., Dekker's algorithm), but it is faster typically to use architecturally defined locks instead.
If two threads write more than an atomic unit (e.g., they both write a 128 bit value), then in fact the atomic unit sized pieces of the values written will be stored in a absolutely well defined way, but you won't know which pieces of which value get written in what order. So what may end up in storage is the value from the first thread, the second thread, or mixes of the bits in atomic unit sizes from both threads.
Similar ideas hold for one thread reading, and one thread writing in atomic units, and larger.
Basically, you don't want to do unsynchronized reads and writes to memory locations, because you won't know the outcome, even though it may be very well defined by the architecture.
The result is undefined. Corrupted data is entirely possible. For an obvious example, consider a 64-bit value being manipulated by a 32-bit processor. Let's assume the value is a simple counter, and we increment it when the lower 32-bits contain 0xffffffff. The increment produces 0x00000000. When we detect that, we increment the upper word. If, however, some other thread read the value between the time the lower word was incremented and the upper word was incremented, they get a value with an un-incremented upper word, but the lower word set to 0 -- a value completely different from what it would have been either before or after the increment is complete.
As I hinted in Ira Baxter's answer, CPU cache also plays a part on multicore systems. Consider the following test code:
DANGER WILL ROBISON!
The following code boosts priority to realtime to achieve somewhat more consistent results - while doing so requires admin privileges, be careful if running the code on dual- or single-core systems, since your machine will lock up for the duration of the test run.
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
const int RUNFOR = 5000;
volatile bool terminating = false;
volatile int value;
static DWORD WINAPI CountErrors(LPVOID parm)
{
int errors = 0;
while(!terminating)
{
value = (int) parm;
if(value != (int) parm)
errors++;
}
printf("\tThread %08X: %d errors\n", parm, errors);
return 0;
}
static void RunTest(int affinity1, int affinity2)
{
terminating = false;
DWORD dummy;
HANDLE t1 = CreateThread(0, 0, CountErrors, (void*)0x1000, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &dummy);
HANDLE t2 = CreateThread(0, 0, CountErrors, (void*)0x2000, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &dummy);
SetThreadAffinityMask(t1, affinity1);
SetThreadAffinityMask(t2, affinity2);
ResumeThread(t1);
ResumeThread(t2);
printf("Running test for %d milliseconds with affinity %d and %d\n", RUNFOR, affinity1, affinity2);
Sleep(RUNFOR);
terminating = true;
Sleep(100); // let threads have a chance of picking up the "terminating" flag.
}
int main()
{
SetPriorityClass(GetCurrentProcess(), REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS);
RunTest(1, 2); // core 1 & 2
RunTest(1, 4); // core 1 & 3
RunTest(4, 8); // core 3 & 4
RunTest(1, 8); // core 1 & 4
}
On my Quad-core intel Q6600 system (which iirc has two sets of cores where each set share L2 cache - would explain the results anyway ;)), I get the following results:
Running test for 5000 milliseconds with affinity 1 and 2
Thread 00002000: 351883 errors
Thread 00001000: 343523 errors
Running test for 5000 milliseconds with affinity 1 and 4
Thread 00001000: 48073 errors
Thread 00002000: 59813 errors
Running test for 5000 milliseconds with affinity 4 and 8
Thread 00002000: 337199 errors
Thread 00001000: 335467 errors
Running test for 5000 milliseconds with affinity 1 and 8
Thread 00001000: 55736 errors
Thread 00002000: 72441 errors
I have several question regarding cuda. Following is a figure taken from a book on parallel programming. It shows how threads are allocated in the device for a multiplication of two vectors each of length 8192.
1) in threadblock 0 there are 15 SIMD threads. Are these 15 threads executed in parallel or just one thread at a specific time?
2) each block contains 512 elements in this example. is this number dependent on the hardware or is it a decision of the programmer?
1)
In this particular example, each thread seems to be assigned to 32 elements in the vector. Code that is executed by a single thread is executed sequentially.
2)
The size of the thread blocks is up to the programmer. However, there are restrictions on the number and size of the thread blocks given the hardware the code is executed on. For more information on this, see this elaborate answer:
Understanding CUDA grid dimensions, block dimensions and threads organization (simple explanation)
From your illustration, it seems that:
The grid is composed of 16 thread blocks, numbered from 0 to 15.
Each block is composed of 16 "SIMD threads", numbered from 0 to 15
Each "SIMD thread" computes the product of 32 vector elements.
It is not necessarily obvious from the illustration whether "SIMD thread" means, in the CUDA (OpenCL) parlance:
A warp (wavefront) of 32 threads (work-items)
or:
A thread (work-item) working on 32 elements
I will assume the former ("SIMD thread" = warp/wavefront), since it is a more reasonable assumption performance-wise, but the latter isn't technically incorrect, it's simply suboptimal design (on current hardware, at least).
1) in threadblock 0 there are 15 SIMD threads. Are these 15 threads executed in parallel or just one thread at a specific time?
As stated above, there are 16 warps (numbered from 0 to 15, that makes 16) in thread block 0, each of them made of 32 threads. These threads execute in lockstep, simultaneously, in parallel. The warps are executed independently from each another, sequentially or in parallel, depending on the capabilities of the underlying hardware. For example, the hardware may be capable of scheduling a number of warps for simultaneous execution.
2) each block contains 512 elements in this example. is this number dependent on the hardware or is it a decision of the programmer?
In this case, it is simply a decision of the programmer, but in some cases there are also hardware limitations that could force the programmer into changing the design. For example, there is a maximum number of threads a block can handle, and there is a maximum number of blocks a grid can handle.