So I'm trying to make use of this custom RNG library for openCL:
http://cas.ee.ic.ac.uk/people/dt10/research/rngs-gpu-mwc64x.html
The library defines a state struct:
//! Represents the state of a particular generator
typedef struct{ uint x; uint c; } mwc64x_state_t;
And in order to generate a random uint, you pass in the state into the following function:
uint MWC64X_NextUint(mwc64x_state_t *s)
which updates the state, so that when you pass it into the function again, the next "random" number in the sequence will be generated.
For the project I am creating I need to be able to generate random numbers not just in different work groups/items but also across multiple devices simultaneously and I'm having trouble figuring out the best way to design this. Like should I create 1 mwc64x_state_t object per device/commandqueue and pass that state in as a global variable? Or is it possible to create 1 state object for all devices at once?
Or do I not even pass it in as a global variable and declare a new state locally within each kernel function?
The library also comes with this function:
void MWC64X_SeedStreams(mwc64x_state_t *s, ulong baseOffset, ulong perStreamOffset)
Which supposedly is supposed to split up the RNG into multiple "streams" but including this in my kernel makes it incredibly slow. For instance, if I do something very simple like the following:
__kernel void myKernel()
{
mwc64x_state_t rng;
MWC64X_SeedStreams(&rng, 0, 10000);
}
Then the kernel call becomes around 40x slower.
The library does come with some source code that serves as example usages but the example code is kind of limited and doesn't seem to be that helpful.
So if anyone is familiar with RNGs in openCL or if you've used this particular library before I'd very much appreciate your advice.
The MWC64X_SeedStreams function is indeed relatively slow, at least in comparison
to the MWC64X_NextUint call, but this is true of most parallel RNGs that try
to split a large global stream into many sub-streams that can be used in
parallel. The assumption is that you'll be calling NextUint many times
within the kernel (e.g. a hundred or more), but SeedStreams is only at the top.
This is an annotated version of the EstimatePi example that comes with
with the library (mwc64x/test/estimate_pi.cpp and mwc64x/test/test_mwc64x.cl).
__kernel void EstimatePi(ulong n, ulong baseOffset, __global ulong *acc)
{
// One RNG state per work-item
mwc64x_state_t rng;
// This calculates the number of samples that each work-item uses
ulong samplesPerStream=n/get_global_size(0);
// And then skip each work-item to their part of the stream, which
// will from stream offset:
// baseOffset+2*samplesPerStream*get_global_id(0)
// up to (but not including):
// baseOffset+2*samplesPerStream*(get_global_id(0)+1)
//
MWC64X_SeedStreams(&rng, baseOffset, 2*samplesPerStream);
// Now use the numbers
uint count=0;
for(uint i=0;i<samplesPerStream;i++){
ulong x=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
ulong y=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
ulong x2=x*x;
ulong y2=y*y;
if(x2+y2 >= x2)
count++;
}
acc[get_global_id(0)] = count;
}
So the intent is that n should be large and grow as the number
of work items grow, so that samplesPerStream remains around
a hundred or more.
If you want multiple kernels on multiple devices, then you
need to add another level of hierarchy to the stream splitting,
so for example if you have:
K : Number of devices (possibly on parallel machines)
W : Number work-items per device
C : Number of calls to NextUint per work-item
You end up with N=KWC total calls to NextUint across all
work-items. If your devices are identified as k=0..(K-1),
then within each kernel you would do:
MWC64X_SeedStreams(&rng, W*C*k, C);
Then the indices within the stream would be:
[0 .. N ) : Parts of stream used across all devices
[k*(W*C) .. (k+1)*(W*C) ) : Used within device k
[k*(W*C)+(i*C) .. (k*W*C)+(i+1)*C ) : Used by work-item i in device k.
It is fine if each kernel uses less than C samples, you can
over-estimate if necessary.
(I'm the author of the library).
Related
I have a boost::multiprecision::cpp_int in big endian and have to change it to little endian. How can I do that? I tried with boost::endian::conversion but that did not work.
boost::multiprecision::cpp_int bigEndianInt("0xe35fa931a0000*);
boost::multiprecision::cpp_int littleEndianInt;
littleEndianIn = boost::endian::endian_reverse(m_cppInt);
The memory layout of boost multi-precision types is implementation detail. So you cannot assume much about it anyways (they're not supposed to be bitwise serializable).
Just read a random section of the docs:
MinBits
Determines the number of Bits to store directly within the object before resorting to dynamic memory allocation. When zero, this field is determined automatically based on how many bits can be stored in union with the dynamic storage header: setting a larger value may improve performance as larger integer values will be stored internally before memory allocation is required.
It's not immediately clear that you have any chance at some level of "normal int behaviour" in memory layout. The only exception would be when MinBits==MaxBits.
Indeed, we can static_assert that the size of cpp_int with such backend configs match the corresponding byte-sizes.
It turns out that there's even a promising tag in the backend base-class to indicate "triviality" (this is truly promising): trivial_tag, so let's use it:
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/multiprecision/cpp_int.hpp>
namespace mp = boost::multiprecision;
template <int bits> using simple_be =
mp::cpp_int_backend<bits, bits, mp::unsigned_magnitude>;
template <int bits> using my_int =
mp::number<simple_be<bits>, mp::et_off>;
using my_int8_t = my_int<8>;
using my_int16_t = my_int<16>;
using my_int32_t = my_int<32>;
using my_int64_t = my_int<64>;
using my_int128_t = my_int<128>;
using my_int192_t = my_int<192>;
using my_int256_t = my_int<256>;
template <typename Num>
constexpr bool is_trivial_v = Num::backend_type::trivial_tag::value;
int main() {
static_assert(sizeof(my_int8_t) == 1);
static_assert(sizeof(my_int16_t) == 2);
static_assert(sizeof(my_int32_t) == 4);
static_assert(sizeof(my_int64_t) == 8);
static_assert(sizeof(my_int128_t) == 16);
static_assert(is_trivial_v<my_int8_t>);
static_assert(is_trivial_v<my_int16_t>);
static_assert(is_trivial_v<my_int32_t>);
static_assert(is_trivial_v<my_int64_t>);
static_assert(is_trivial_v<my_int128_t>);
// however it doesn't scale
static_assert(sizeof(my_int192_t) != 24);
static_assert(sizeof(my_int256_t) != 32);
static_assert(not is_trivial_v<my_int192_t>);
static_assert(not is_trivial_v<my_int256_t>);
}
Conluding: you can have trivial int representation up to a certain point, after which you get the allocator-based dynamic-limb implementation no matter what.
Note that using unsigned_packed instead of unsigned_magnitude representation never leads to a trivial backend implementation.
Note that triviality might depend on compiler/platform choices (it's likely that cpp_128_t uses some builtin compiler/standard library support on GCC, e.g.)
Given this, you MIGHT be able to pull of what you wanted to do with hacks IF your backend configuration support triviality. Sadly I think it requires you to manually overload endian_reverse for 128 bits case, because the GCC builtins do not have __builtin_bswap128, nor does Boost Endian define things.
I'd suggest working off the information here How to make GCC generate bswap instruction for big endian store without builtins?
Final Demo (not complete)
#include <boost/multiprecision/cpp_int.hpp>
#include <boost/endian/buffers.hpp>
namespace mp = boost::multiprecision;
namespace be = boost::endian;
template <int bits> void check() {
using T = mp::number<mp::cpp_int_backend<bits, bits, mp::unsigned_magnitude>, mp::et_off>;
static_assert(sizeof(T) == bits/8);
static_assert(T::backend_type::trivial_tag::value);
be::endian_buffer<be::order::big, T, bits, be::align::no> buf;
buf = T("0x0102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f00");
std::cout << std::hex << buf.value() << "\n";
}
int main() {
check<128>();
}
(Changing be::order::big to be::order::native obviously makes it compile. The other way to complete it would be to have an ADL accessible overload for endian_reverse for your int type.)
This is both trivial and in the general case unanswerable, let me explain:
For a general N-bit integer, where N is a large number, there is unlikely to be any well defined byte order, indeed even for 64 and 128 bit integers there are more than 2 possible orders in use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness#Middle-endian.
On any platform, with any native endianness you can always extract the bytes of a cpp_int, the first example here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/libs/multiprecision/doc/html/boost_multiprecision/tut/import_export.html#boost_multiprecision.tut.import_export.examples shows you how. When exporting bytes like this, they are always most significant byte first, so you can subsequently rearrange them how you wish. You should not however, rearrange them and load them back into a cpp_int as the class won't know what to do with the result!
If you know that the value is small enough to fit into a native integer type, then you can simply cast to the native integer and use a system API on the result. As in endian_reverse(static_cast<int64_t>(my_cpp_int)). Again, don't assign the result back into a cpp_int as it requires native byte order.
If you wish to check whether a value is small enough to fit in an N-bit integer for the approach above, you can use the msb function, which returns the index of the most significant bit in the cpp_int, add one to that to obtain the number of bits used, and filter out the zero case and the code looks like:
unsigned bits_used = my_cpp_int.is_zero() ? 0 : msb(my_cpp_int) + 1;
Note that all of the above use completely portable code - no hacking of the underlying implementation is required.
I have the code, which looks like:
...
const N=10000;
std::array<std::pair <int,int>,N> nnt;
bool compar(std::pair<int,int> i, std::pair <int,int> j) {return (int)
(i.second) > (int)(j.second);}
...
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
#pragma acc data create(...,nnt)
{
#pragma acc parallel loop
{...}
//the nnt array is filled here
//here i need to sort nnt allocated on gpu, using the
//comparator compar()
}
}
So i need to sort an array of pairs, alocated on the GPU by the means of CUDA of OpenAcc.
As far as i understood, it is unlikely that i will be able to sort std::array of std::pair's on GPU.
Actually, i need to sort one array, allocated on the gpu, by another one alocated on the gpu, i. e. if there are
int a[N];
int b[N];
which are allocated or copied to the GPU by the means of CUDA or OpenAcc, i need to sort the array a by the values of the array b, and i need this sort to be done on GPU. May be, there are some CUDA functions that will help or the CUDA Thrust sort functions could be used (like thrust::stable_sort), i don't know. Is there a way to do it?
Is there a way to do it?
yes, one possible method would be to use thrust::sort_by_key, which allows you to sort device data using a device pointer.
This blog explains the method to interface between thrust and OpenACC. Including the passage of a deviceptr between routines.
This example code may be of interest. Specifically, the hash example gives a fully-worked example of calling thrust::sort_by_key from OpenACC.
I'm looking to integrate a scripting engine in my C/C++ program. Currently, I am looking at Google V8.
How do I efficiently handle 64 bit values in V8? My C/C++ program uses 64 bit values extensivly for keeping handlers/pointers. I don't want them separatelly allocated on the heap. There appears to be a V8::External value type. Can I assign it to a Javascript variable and use it as a value type?
function foo() {
var a = MyNativeFunctionReturningAnUnsigned64BitValue();
var b = a; // Hopefully, b is a stack allocated value capable of
// keeping a 64 bit pointer or some other uint64 structure.
MyNativeFunctionThatAcceptsAnUnsigned64BitValue(b);
}
If it is not possible in V8, how about SpiderMonkey? I know that Duktape (Javascript engine) has a non Ecmascript standard 64 bit value type (stack allocated) to host pointers, but I would assume that other engines also wants to keep track of external pointers from within their objects.
No it's not possible and I'm afraid duktape could be violating the spec unless it took some great pains to ensure it's not observable.
You can store pointers in objects so to store 64-bit ints directly on an object you need pointers to have the same size:
Local<FunctionTemplate> function_template = FunctionTemplate::New(isolate);
// Instances of this function have room for 1 internal field
function_template->InstanceTemplate()->SetInternalFieldCount(1);
Local<Object> object = function_template->GetFunction()->NewInstance();
static_assert(sizeof(void*) == sizeof(uint64_t));
uint64_t integer = 1;
object->SetAlignedPointerInInternalField(0, reinterpret_cast<void*>(integer));
uint64_t result = reinterpret_cast<uint64_t>(object->GetAlignedPointerInInternalField(0));
This is of course far from being efficient.
as i mentioned on subject of this post i found out OOP is slower than Structural Programming(spaghetti code) in the hard way.
i writed a simulated annealing program with OOP then remove one class and write it structural in main form. suddenly it got much faster . i was calling my removed class in every iteration in OOP program.
also checked it with Tabu Search. Same result .
can anyone tell me why this is happening and how can i fix it on other OOP programs?
are there any tricks ? for example cache my classes or something like that?
(Programs has been written in C#)
If you have a high-frequency loop, and inside that loop you create new objects and don't call other functions very much, then, yes, you will see that if you can avoid those news, say by re-using one copy of the object, you can save a large fraction of total time.
Between new, constructors, destructors, and garbage collection, a very little code can waste a whole lot of time.
Use them sparingly.
Memory access is often overlooked. The way o.o. tends to lay out data in memory is not conducive to efficient memory access in practice in loops. Consider the following pseudocode:
adult_clients = 0
for client in list_of_all_clients:
if client.age >= AGE_OF_MAJORITY:
adult_clients++
It so happens that the way this is accessed from memory is quite inefficient on modern architectures because they like accessing large contiguous rows of memory, but we only care for client.age, and of all clients we have; those will not be laid out in contiguous memory.
Focusing on objects that have fields results into data being laid out in memory in such a way that fields that hold the same type of information will not be laid out in consecutive memory. Performance-heavy code tends to involve loops that often look at data with the same conceptual meaning. It is conducive to performance that such data be laid out in contiguous memory.
Consider these two examples in Rust:
// struct that contains an id, and an optiona value of whether the id is divisible by three
struct Foo {
id : u32,
divbythree : Option<bool>,
}
fn main () {
// create a pretty big vector of these structs with increasing ids, and divbythree initialized as None
let mut vec_of_foos : Vec<Foo> = (0..100000000).map(|i| Foo{ id : i, divbythree : None }).collect();
// loop over all hese vectors, determine if the id is divisible by three
// and set divbythree accordingly
let mut divbythrees = 0;
for foo in vec_of_foos.iter_mut() {
if foo.id % 3 == 0 {
foo.divbythree = Some(true);
divbythrees += 1;
} else {
foo.divbythree = Some(false);
}
}
// print the number of times it was divisible by three
println!("{}", divbythrees);
}
On my system, the real time with rustc -O is 0m0.436s; now let us consider this example:
fn main () {
// this time we create two vectors rather than a vector of structs
let vec_of_ids : Vec<u32> = (0..100000000).collect();
let mut vec_of_divbythrees : Vec<Option<bool>> = vec![None; vec_of_ids.len()];
// but we basically do the same thing
let mut divbythrees = 0;
for i in 0..vec_of_ids.len(){
if vec_of_ids[i] % 3 == 0 {
vec_of_divbythrees[i] = Some(true);
divbythrees += 1;
} else {
vec_of_divbythrees[i] = Some(false);
}
}
println!("{}", divbythrees);
}
This runs in 0m0.254s on the same optimization level, — close to half the time needed.
Despite having to allocate two vectors instead of of one, storing similar values in contiguous memory has almost halved the execution time. Though obviously the o.o. approach provides for much nicer and more maintainable code.
P.s.: it occurs to me that I should probably explain why this matters so much given that the code itself in both cases still indexes memory one field at a time, rather than, say, putting a large swath on the stack. The reason is c.p.u. caches: when the program asks for the memory at a certain address, it actually obtains, and caches, a significant chunk of memory around that address, and if memory next to it be asked quickly again, then it can serve it from the cache, rather than from actual physical working memory. Of course, compilers will also vectorize the bottom code more efficiently as a consequence.
How can you measure the amount of time a function will take to execute?
This is a relatively short function and the execution time would probably be in the millisecond range.
This particular question relates to an embedded system, programmed in C or C++.
The best way to do that on an embedded system is to set an external hardware pin when you enter the function and clear it when you leave the function. This is done preferably with a little assembly instruction so you don't skew your results too much.
Edit: One of the benefits is that you can do it in your actual application and you don't need any special test code. External debug pins like that are (should be!) standard practice for every embedded system.
There are three potential solutions:
Hardware Solution:
Use a free output pin on the processor and hook an oscilloscope or logic analyzer to the pin. Initialize the pin to a low state, just before calling the function you want to measure, assert the pin to a high state and just after returning from the function, deassert the pin.
*io_pin = 1;
myfunc();
*io_pin = 0;
Bookworm solution:
If the function is fairly small, and you can manage the disassembled code, you can crack open the processor architecture databook and count the cycles it will take the processor to execute every instructions. This will give you the number of cycles required.
Time = # cycles * Processor Clock Rate / Clock ticks per instructions
This is easier to do for smaller functions, or code written in assembler (for a PIC microcontroller for example)
Timestamp counter solution:
Some processors have a timestamp counter which increments at a rapid rate (every few processor clock ticks). Simply read the timestamp before and after the function.
This will give you the elapsed time, but beware that you might have to deal with the counter rollover.
Invoke it in a loop with a ton of invocations, then divide by the number of invocations to get the average time.
so:
// begin timing
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
invokeFunction();
}
// end time
// divide by 10000 to get actual time.
if you're using linux, you can time a program's runtime by typing in the command line:
time [funtion_name]
if you run only the function in main() (assuming C++), the rest of the app's time should be negligible.
I repeat the function call a lot of times (millions) but also employ the following method to discount the loop overhead:
start = getTicks();
repeat n times {
myFunction();
myFunction();
}
lap = getTicks();
repeat n times {
myFunction();
}
finish = getTicks();
// overhead + function + function
elapsed1 = lap - start;
// overhead + function
elapsed2 = finish - lap;
// overhead + function + function - overhead - function = function
ntimes = elapsed1 - elapsed2;
once = ntimes / n; // Average time it took for one function call, sans loop overhead
Instead of calling function() twice in the first loop and once in the second loop, you could just call it once in the first loop and don't call it at all (i.e. empty loop) in the second, however the empty loop could be optimized out by the compiler, giving you negative timing results :)
start_time = timer
function()
exec_time = timer - start_time
Windows XP/NT Embedded or Windows CE/Mobile
You an use the QueryPerformanceCounter() to get the value of a VERY FAST counter before and after your function. Then you substract those 64-bits values and get a delta "ticks". Using QueryPerformanceCounterFrequency() you can convert the "delta ticks" to an actual time unit. You can refer to MSDN documentation about those WIN32 calls.
Other embedded systems
Without operating systems or with only basic OSes you will have to:
program one of the internal CPU timers to run and count freely.
configure it to generate an interrupt when the timer overflows, and in this interrupt routine increment a "carry" variable (this is so you can actually measure time longer than the resolution of the timer chosen).
before your function you save BOTH the "carry" value and the value of the CPU register holding the running ticks for the counting timer you configured.
same after your function
substract them to get a delta counter tick.
from there it is just a matter of knowing how long a tick means on your CPU/Hardware given the external clock and the de-multiplication you configured while setting up your timer. You multiply that "tick length" by the "delta ticks" you just got.
VERY IMPORTANT Do not forget to disable before and restore interrupts after getting those timer values (bot the carry and the register value) otherwise you risk saving incorrect values.
NOTES
This is very fast because it is only a few assembly instructions to disable interrupts, save two integer values and re-enable interrupts. The actual substraction and conversion to real time units occurs OUTSIDE the zone of time measurement, that is AFTER your function.
You may wish to put that code into a function to reuse that code all around but it may slow things a bit because of the function call and the pushing of all the registers to the stack, plus the parameters, then popping them again. In an embedded system this may be significant. It may be better then in C to use MACROS instead or write your own assembly routine saving/restoring only relevant registers.
Depends on your embedded platform and what type of timing you are looking for. For embedded Linux, there are several ways you can accomplish. If you wish to measure the amout of CPU time used by your function, you can do the following:
#include <time.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define SEC_TO_NSEC(s) ((s) * 1000 * 1000 * 1000)
int work_function(int c) {
// do some work here
int i, j;
int foo = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
for ^= i + j;
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
struct timespec pre;
struct timespec post;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID, &pre);
work_function(0);
clock_gettime(CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID, &post);
printf("time %d\n",
(SEC_TO_NSEC(post.tv_sec) + post.tv_nsec) -
(SEC_TO_NSEC(pre.tv_sec) + pre.tv_nsec));
return 0;
}
You will need to link this with the realtime library, just use the following to compile your code:
gcc -o test test.c -lrt
You may also want to read the man page on clock_gettime there is some issues with running this code on SMP based system that could invalidate you testing. You could use something like sched_setaffinity() or the command line cpuset to force the code on only one core.
If you are looking to measure user and system time, then you could use the times(NULL) which returns something like a jiffies. Or you can change the parameter for clock_gettime() from CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME_ID to CLOCK_MONOTONIC...but be careful of wrap around with CLOCK_MONOTONIC.
For other platforms, you are on your own.
Drew
I always implement an interrupt driven ticker routine. This then updates a counter that counts the number of milliseconds since start up. This counter is then accessed with a GetTickCount() function.
Example:
#define TICK_INTERVAL 1 // milliseconds between ticker interrupts
static unsigned long tickCounter;
interrupt ticker (void)
{
tickCounter += TICK_INTERVAL;
...
}
unsigned in GetTickCount(void)
{
return tickCounter;
}
In your code you would time the code as follows:
int function(void)
{
unsigned long time = GetTickCount();
do something ...
printf("Time is %ld", GetTickCount() - ticks);
}
In OS X terminal (and probably Unix, too), use "time":
time python function.py
If the code is .Net, use the stopwatch class (.net 2.0+) NOT DateTime.Now. DateTime.Now isn't updated accurately enough and will give you crazy results
If you're looking for sub-millisecond resolution, try one of these timing methods. They'll all get you resolution in at least the tens or hundreds of microseconds:
If it's embedded Linux, look at Linux timers:
http://linux.die.net/man/3/clock_gettime
Embedded Java, look at nanoTime(), though I'm not sure this is in the embedded edition:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#nanoTime()
If you want to get at the hardware counters, try PAPI:
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/
Otherwise you can always go to assembler. You could look at the PAPI source for your architecture if you need some help with this.