I have a program that loops through a sequence of multiple for-loops (with other things in-between). Some the for-loops are parallelized using "#pragma omp parallel for". The number of threads is set via omp_set_num_threads() in the beginning.
It appears, however, that some of those for-loops make OpenMP to start a second team of threads and the process ends up with twice as many OpenMP threads than set with omp_set_num_threads().
What could cause this?
This question might be a duplicate question.
Like I understand during Parallel processing, CPUs/cores work on a single task(program or process) to make total execution time shorter, and during multiprocessing CPUs/cores, work on a completely different task (tasks don't have anything in common), this is done to make total execution time shorter. Am I right?
I also have another question: if multiprocessing or parallel processing makes the program faster why we don't use it every time?
There are many resources for this already. For instance, here and here.
Multiprocessing is used all the time on modern computers that have 2+ cpus and more than one schedule-able process. Parallel processing requires extensive programming effort and there is a limit to parallel execution speedup one can achieve on a program (look up Amdahl's law).
I use OpenMP for parallel sorting at start of my program. Once data is loaded and sorted, the program runs as a daemon and OpenMP is not used any more. Is there a way to turn off the idle threads created by OpenMP? omp_set_num_threads() doesn't affect the idle threads which have already been created for a task.
Please look up OMP_WAIT_POLICY, which is new in OpenMP 4 [https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libgomp/OMP_005fWAIT_005fPOLICY.html].
There are non-portable alternatives like GOMP_SPINCOUNT if your OpenMP implementation isn't recent enough. I recall from OpenMP specification discussions that at least Intel, IBM, Cray, and Oracle support their own implementation of this feature already.
I don't believe there is a way to trigger the threads' destruction. Modern OpenMP implementations tend to keep threads around in a pool to speed up starting future parallel sections.
In your case I would recommend a two program solution (one parallel to sort and one serial for the daemon). How you communicate the data between them is up to you. You could do something simple like writing it to a file and then reading it again. This may not be as slow as it sounds since a modern linux distribution might keep that file in memory in the file cache.
If you really want to be sure it stays in memory, you could launch the two processes simultaneously and allow them to share memory and allow the first parallel sort process to exit when it is done.
In theory, OpenMP has a implicit synchronization at the end of the "pragma" clauses. So, when the OpenMP parallel work ends, all the threads are deleted. You dont need to kill them or free them: OpenMP does that automatically.
Maybe "omp_get_num_threads()" is telling to you the actual configuration of the program, not the number of active threads. I mean: if you set the number of threads to 4, omp will tell you that the configuration is "4 threads", but this does not mean that there are actually 4 threads in process.
If I have just one for loop to parallelize and if I use #pragma omp critical while parallelizing, will that make it equivalent to a serial code?
No.
The critical directive specifies that the code it covers is executed by one thread at a time, but it will (eventually) be executed by all threads that encounter it.
The single directive specifies that the code it covers will only be executed by one thread but even that isn't exactly the same as compiling the code without OpenMP. OpenMP imposes some restrictions on what programming constructs can be used inside parallel regions (eg no jumping out of them). Furthermore, at run-time you are likely to incur an overhead for firing up OpenMP even if you don't actually run any code in parallel.
Forgive me if this is not actually a race condition; I'm not that familiar with the nomenclature.
The problem I'm having is that this code runs slower with OpenMP enabled. I think the loop should be plenty big enough (k=100,000), so I don't think overhead is the issue.
As I understand it, a race condition is occurring here because all the loops are trying to access the same v(i,j) values all the time, slowing down the code.
Would the best fix here be to create as many copies of the v() array as threads and have each thread access a different one?
I'm using intel compiler on 16 cores, and it runs just slightly slower than on a single core.
Thanks all!
!$OMP PARALLEL DO
Do 500, k=1,n
Do 10, i=-(b-1),b-1
Do 20, j=-(b-1),b-1
if (abs(i).le.l.and.abs(j).eq.d) then
cycle
endif
v(i,j)=.25*(v(i+1,j)+v(i-1,j)+v(i,j+1)+v(i,j-1))
if (k.eq.n-1) then
vtest(i,j,1)=v(i,j)
endif
if (k.eq.n) then
vtest(i,j,2)=v(i,j)
endif
20 continue
10 continue
500 continue
!$OMP END PARALLEL DO
You certainly have programmed a race condition though I'm not sure that that is the cause of your program's failure to execute more quickly. This line
v(i,j)=.25*(v(i+1,j)+v(i-1,j)+v(i,j+1)+v(i,j-1))
which will be executed by all threads for the same (set of) values for i and j is where the racing happens. Given that your program does nothing to coordinate reads and writes to the elements of v your program is, in practice, not deterministic as there is no way to know the order in which updates to v are made.
You should have observed this non-determinism on inspecting the results of the program, and have noticed that changing the number of threads has an impact on the results too. Then again, with a long-running stencil operation over an array the results may have converged to the same (or similar enough) values.
OpenMP gives you the tools to coordinate access to variables but it doesn't automatically implement them; there is definitely nothing going on under the hood to prevent quasi-simultaneous reads from and writes to v. So the explanation for the lack of performance improvement lies elsewhere. It may be down to the impact of multiple threads on cache at some level in your system's memory hierarchy. A nice, cache-friendly, run over every element of an array in memory order for a serial program becomes a blizzard of (as far as the cache is concerned) random accesses to memory requiring access to RAM at every go.
It's possible that the explanation lies elsewhere. If the time to execute the OpenMP version is slightly longer than the time to execute a serial version I suspect that the program is not, in fact, being executed in parallel. Failure to compile properly is a common (here on SO) cause of that.
How to fix this ?
Well the usual pattern of OpenMP across an array is to parallelise on one of the array indices. The statements
!$omp parallel do
do i=-(b-1),b-1
....
end do
ensure that each thread gets a different set of values for i which means that they write to different elements of v, removing (almost) the data race. As you've written the program each thread gets a different set of values of k but that's not used (much) in the inner loops.
In passing, testing
if (k==n-1) then
and
if (k==n) then
in every iteration looks like you are tying an anchor to your program, why not just
do k=1,n-2
and deal with the updates to vtest at the end of the loop.
You could separate the !$omp parallel do like this
!$omp parallel
do k=1,n-2
!$omp do
do i=-(b-1),b-1
(and make the corresponding changes at the end of the parallel loop and region). Now all threads execute the entire contents of the parallel region but each gets its own set of i values to use. I recommend that you add clauses to your directives to specify the accessibility (eg private or shared) of each variable; but this answer is getting a bit too long and I won't go into more detail on these. Or on using a schedule clause.
Finally, of course, even with the changes I've suggested your program will be non-deterministic because this statement
v(i,j)=.25*(v(i+1,j)+v(i-1,j)+v(i,j+1)+v(i,j-1))
will read neighbouring elements from v which are updated (at a time you have no control over) by another thread. To sort that out ... got to go back to work.