When I try the following code
double start = omp_get_wtime();
long i;
#pragma omp parallel for
for (i = 0; i <= 1000000000; i++) {
double x = rand();
}
double end = omp_get_wtime();
printf("%f\n", end - start);
Execution time is about 168 seconds, while the sequential version only spends 20 seconds.
I'm still a newbie in parallel programming. How could I get a parallel version that's faster that the sequential one?
The random number generator rand(3) uses global state variables (hidden in the (g)libc implementation). Access to them from multiple threads leads to cache issues and also is not thread safe. You should use the rand_r(3) call with seed parameter private to the thread:
long i;
unsigned seed;
#pragma omp parallel private(seed)
{
// Initialise the random number generator with different seed in each thread
// The following constants are chosen arbitrarily... use something more sensible
seed = 25234 + 17*omp_get_thread_num();
#pragma omp for
for (i = 0; i <= 1000000000; i++) {
double x = rand_r(&seed);
}
}
Note that this will produce different stream of random numbers when executed in parallel than when executed in serial. I would also recommend erand48(3) as a better (pseudo-)random number source.
Related
I am new in using OpenMP.
I think that use max reduction clause to find the max element of an array is not such a bad idea, but in fact the parallel for loop ran much slower than serial one.
int main() {
double sta, end, elapse_t;
int bsize = 46000;
int q = bsize;
int max_val = 0;
double *buffer;
buffer = (double*)malloc(bsize*sizeof(double));
srand(time(NULL));
for(int i=0;i<q;i++)
buffer[i] = rand()%10000;
sta = omp_get_wtime();
//int i;
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(max : max_val)
for(int i=0;i<q; i++)
{
max_val = max_val > buffer[i] ? max_val : buffer[i];
}
end = omp_get_wtime();
printf("parallel maximum time %f\n", end-sta);
sta = omp_get_wtime();
for(int i=0;i<q; i++)
{
max_val = max_val > buffer[i] ? max_val : buffer[i];
}
end = omp_get_wtime();
printf("serial maximum time %f\n", end-sta);
free(buffer);
return 0;}
Compile command
gcc-7 kp_omp.cpp -o kp_omp -fopenmp
Execution results
./kp_omp
parallel maximum time 0.000505
serial maximum time 0.000266
As for the CPU, it is an Intel Core i7-6700 with 8 cores.
Whenever you parallelise a loop openMP needs to perform some operations, for example creating the threads. Those operations result in some overhead and this in turns implies that, for each loop, there is a minimum number of iterations under which it is not convenient to parallelise.
If I execute your code I obtain the same results you have:
./kp_omp
parallel maximum time 0.000570
serial maximum time 0.000253
However if I modify bsize in line 8 such that
int bsize = 100000;
I obtain
./kp_omp
parallel maximum time 0.000323
serial maximum time 0.000552
So the parallelised version got faster than the sequential. Part of the challenges you encounter when you try to speedup the execution of a code is to understand when it is convenient to parallelise and when the overhead of the parallelisation would kill your expected gain in performance.
I'm using OMP to try to get some speedup in a small kernel. It's basically just querying a vector of unordered_sets for membership. I tried to make an optimization, but surprisingly I got a slowdown, and am really curious why.
My first pass was:
vector<unordered_set<uint16_t> > setList = getData();
#pragma omp parallel for default(shared) private(i, j) schedule(dynamic, 50)
for(i = 0; i < size; i++){
for(j = 0; j < 500; j++){
count = count + setList[i].count(val[j]);
}
}
Then I thought I could maybe get a speedup by moving the setList[i] sub expression up one level of nesting and save it in a temp variable, by doing the following:
#pragma omp parallel for default(shared) private(i, j, currSet) schedule(dynamic, 50)
for(i = 0; i < size; i++){
currSet = setList[i];
for(j = 0; j < 500; j++){
count = count + currSet.count(val[j]);
}
}
I had thought this would maybe save a load each iteration of the "j" for loop, and get a speedup, but it actually SLOWED DOWN by about 3x. By this I mean the entire kernel took about 3 times as long to run. Thoughts on why this would occur?
Thanks!
Adding up a few integers is really not enough work to warrant starting threads for.
If you forget to add the reduction clause, you'll suffer from true sharing - all threads want to update that count variable at the same time. This makes all cores fight for the cache line containing tha variable, which will considerably impact your performance.
I just noticed that you set the schedule to be dynamic. You shouldn't. This workload can be divided at compile time already. So don't specify a schedule.
As has already been stated inter-loop dependencies, i.e. threads waiting for data from other threads, or data being accessed by multiple threads successively, can cause a paralleled program to experience slow down and should be avoided as a rule of thumb. Built in functions like reductions can collect individual results and compile them together in an optimised fashion.
Here is a good example of reduction being used in a similar case to yours from the university of Utah
int array[8] = { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1};
int sum = 0, i;
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:sum)
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
sum += array[i];
}
printf("total %d\n", sum);
source: http://www.eng.utah.edu/~cs4960-01/lecture9.pdf
as an aside: private variables need only be assigned when they are local variables inside a parallel region In both cases it is not necessary for i to be declared private.
see wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenMP#Data_sharing_attribute_clauses
Data sharing attribute clauses
shared: the data within a parallel region is shared, which means visible and accessible by all threads simultaneously. By default, all variables in the work sharing region are shared except the loop iteration counter.
private: the data within a parallel region is private to each thread, which means each thread will have a local copy and use it as a temporary variable. A private variable is not initialized and the value is not maintained for use outside the parallel region. By default, the loop iteration counters in the OpenMP loop constructs are private.
see stack exchange answer here: OpenMP: are local variables automatically private?
After I had read that the initial value of reduction variable is set according to the operator used for reduction, I decided that instead of remembering these default values it is better to initialize it explicitly. So I modified the code in question by Totonga as follows
const int num_steps = 100000;
double x, sum, dx = 1./num_steps;
#pragma omp parallel private(x) reduction(+:sum)
{
sum = 0.;
#pragma omp for schedule(static)
for (int i=0; i<num_steps; ++i)
{
x = (i+0.5)*dx;
sum += 4./(1.+x*x);
}
}
But it turns out that no matter whether I write sum = 0. or sum = 123.456 the code produces the same result (used gcc-4.5.2 compiler). Can somebody, please, explain me why? (with a reference to openmp standard, if possible) Thanks in advance to everybody.
P.S. since some people object initializing reduction variable, I think it makes sense to expand a question a little. The code below works as expected: I initialize reduction variable and obtain result, which DOES depend on MY initial value
int sum;
#pragma omp parallel reduction(+:sum)
{
sum = 1;
}
printf("Reduction sum = %d\n",sum);
The printed result will be the number of cores, and not 0.
P.P.S I have to update my question again. User Gilles gave an insightful comment: And upon exit of the parallel region, these local values will be reduced using the + operator, and with the initial value of the variable, prior to entering the section.
Well, the following code gives me the result 3.142592653598146, which is badly calculated pi instead of expected 103.141592653598146 (the initial code was giving me excellent value of pi=3.141592653598146)
const int num_steps = 100000;
double x, sum, dx = 1./num_steps;
sum = 100.;
#pragma omp parallel private(x) reduction(+:sum)
{
#pragma omp for schedule(static)
for (int i=0; i<num_steps; ++i)
{
x = (i+0.5)*dx;
sum += 4./(1.+x*x);
}
}
Why would you want to do that? This is just begging with all your soul for troubles. The reduction clause and the way the local variables used are initialised are defined for a reason, and the idea is that you don't need to remember these initialisation value just because they are already right.
However, in your code, the behaviour is undefined. Let's see why...
Let's assume your initial code is this:
const int num_steps = 100000;
double x, sum, dx = 1./num_steps;
sum = 0.;
for (int i=0; i<num_steps; ++i) {
x = (i+0.5)*dx;
sum += 4./(1.+x*x);
}
Well, the "normal" way of parallelising it with OpenMP would be:
const int num_steps = 100000;
double x, sum, dx = 1./num_steps;
sum = 0.;
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:sum) private(x)
for (int i=0; i<num_steps; ++i) {
x = (i+0.5)*dx;
sum += 4./(1.+x*x);
}
Pretty straightforward, isn't it?
Now, when instead of that, you do:
const int num_steps = 100000;
double x, sum, dx = 1./num_steps;
#pragma omp parallel private(x) reduction(+:sum)
{
sum = 0.;
#pragma omp for schedule(static)
for (int i=0; i<num_steps; ++i)
{
x = (i+0.5)*dx;
sum += 4./(1.+x*x);
}
}
You have a problem... The reason is that upon entry into the parallel region, sum hadn't been initialised. So when you declare omp parallel reduction(+:sum), you create a per-thread private version of sum, initialised to the "logical" initial value corresponding to the operator of you reduction clause, namely 0 here because you asked for a + reduction. And upon exit of the parallel region, these local values will be reduced using the + operator, and with the initial value of the variable, prior to entering the section. See this for reference:
The reduction clause specifies a reduction-identifier and one or more
list items. For each list item, a private copy is created in each
implicit task or SIMD lane, and is initialized with the initializer
value of the reduction-identifier. After the end of the region, the
original list item is updated with the values of the private copies
using the combiner associated with the reduction-identifier
So in summary, upon exit you have the equivalent of sum += sum_local_0 + sum_local_1 + ... sum_local_nbthreadsMinusOne
Therefore, since in your code, sum doesn't have any initial value, its value upon exit of the parallel region isn't defined as well, and can be whatever...
Now let's imagine you did indeed initialise it... Then, if instead of using the right initialiser inside the parallel region (like your sum=0.; in the hereinabove code), you used for whatever reason sum=1.; instead, then the final sum won't be just incremented by 1, but by 1 times the number of threads used inside the parallel region, since the extra value will be counted as many times as there are of threads.
So in conclusion, just use reduction clauses and variables the "expected"/"naïve" way, that will spare you and the people coming after for maintaining your code a lot of troubles.
Edit: It looks like my point was not clear enough, so I'll try to explain it better:
this code:
int sum;
#pragma omp parallel reduction(+:sum)
{
sum = 1;
}
printf("Reduction sum = %d\n",sum);
Has an undefined behaviour because it is equivalent to:
int sum, numthreads;
#pragma omp parallel
#pragma omp single
numthreads = omp_get_num_threads();
sum += numthreads; // value of sum is undefined since it never was initialised
printf("Reduction sum = %d\n",sum);
Now, this code is valid:
int sum = 0; //here, sum has been initialised
#pragma omp parallel reduction(+:sum)
{
sum = 1;
}
printf("Reduction sum = %d\n",sum);
To convince yourself, just read the snippet of the standard I gave:
After the end of the region, the
original list item is updated with the values of the private copies
using the combiner associated with the reduction-identifier
So the reduction uses the combination of the private reduction variables and the original value to perform the final reduction upon exit. So if the original value wasn't set, the final value is undefined as well. And that's not because for some reason your compiler gives you a value that seems right, that the code is right.
Is that clearer now?
I get the code from wikipedia:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
#define N 100
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
float a[N], b[N], c[N];
int i;
omp_set_dynamic(0);
omp_set_num_threads(10);
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
a[i] = i * 1.0;
b[i] = i * 2.0;
}
#pragma omp parallel shared(a, b, c) private(i)
{
#pragma omp for
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
c[i] = a[i] + b[i];
}
printf ("%f\n", c[10]);
return 0;
}
I tryed to compile and run it in my Ubuntu 11.04 with gcc4.5 (my configuration: Intel C2D T7500M 2.2GHz, 2048Mb RAM) and this program worked in two times slower than single-threaded. Why?
Very simple answer: Increase N. And set the number of threads equal to the number processors you have.
For your machine, 100 is a very low number. Try some orders of magnitudes higher.
Another question is: How are you measuring the computation time? Usually one takes the program time to get comparable results.
I suppose the compiler optimized the for loop in the non-smp case (using SSE instructions, e.g.) and it can't in the OMP variant.
Use gcc -S (or objdump -S) to view the assembly for the different variants.
You might want to watch out with the shared variables anyway, because they need to be synchronized, making things very slow. If you can 'smart' chunks (look at the schedule pragma) you might reduce the contention, but again:
verify the emitted code
profile
don't underestimate the efficiency of singlethreaded code (because of cache locality and lack of context switches)
set the number of threads to the number of CPUs (let openMP decide it for you!); unless your thread-team has a master thread with dedicated tasks, in which case there might be value in allocating ONE extra thread
In all the cases where I tried to apply OMP for parallelization, roughly 70% of the cases are slower. The cases where it is a definite speedup is with
coarse-grained parallellism (your sample is on the fine-grained end of the spectrum)
no shared data
The issue you are facing is false memory sharing. Each thread should have its own private c[i].
Try this: #pragma omp parallel shared(a, b) private(i, c)
Run the code below and see the difference.
1.) OpenMP has an overhead so the runtime has to be more than the overhead to see a benefit.
2.) Don't set the number of threads yourself. In general I use the default threads. However, if your processor has hyper-threading you might get a bit better performance by setting the number of threads equal to the number of cores. With hyper threading the default number of threads will be twice the number of cores. For example on my machine I have four cores and the default number of threads is eight. By setting it to four in some situations I get better results and in other cases I get worse results.
3.) There is some false sharing in c but as long as N is large enough (which it needs to be to overcome the overhead) the false sharing will not cause much of a problem. You can play with the chunk size but I don't think it will be helpful.
4.) Cache issues. You have at least four levels of memory (the values are for my system): L1 (32Kb), L2(256Kb), L3(12Mb), and main memory (>>12Mb). The benefits of parallelism are going to diminish as you move into higher level. However, in the example below I set N to 100 million floats which is 400 million bytes or about 381Mb and it is still significantly faster using multiple threads. Try adjusting N and see what happens. For example try setting N to your cache levels/4 (one float is 4 bytes) (arrays a and b also need to be in the cache so you might need to set N to the cache level/12). However, if N is too small you fight with the OpenMP overhead (which is what the code in your question does).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
#define N 100000000
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
float *a = new float[N];
float *b = new float[N];
float *c = new float[N];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
a[i] = i * 1.0;
b[i] = i * 2.0;
}
double dtime;
dtime = omp_get_wtime();
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
c[i] = a[i] + b[i];
}
dtime = omp_get_wtime() - dtime;
printf ("time %f, %f\n", dtime, c[10]);
dtime = omp_get_wtime();
#pragma omp parallel for private(i)
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
c[i] = a[i] + b[i];
}
dtime = omp_get_wtime() - dtime;
printf ("time %f, %f\n", dtime, c[10]);
return 0;
}
What is the difference in combining 2 for loops and parallizing together and parallizing separately
Example
1. not paralleling together
#pragma omp parallel for
for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
//.... some code
}
#pragma omp parallel for
for(i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
//.... some code
}
2. paralleling together
#pragma omp parallel
{
#pragma omp for
for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
//.... some code
}
#pragma omp for
for(i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
//.... some code
}
}
which code is better and why????
One might expect a small win in the second, because one is fork/joining (or the functional equivalent) the OMP threads twice, rather than once. Whether it makes any actual difference for your code is an empirical question best answered by measurement.
The second can also have a more significant advantage if the work in the two loops are independant, and you can start the second at any time, and there's reason to expect some load imbalance in the first loop. In that case, you can add a nowait clause to the firs tomp for and, rather than all threads waiting until the for loop ends, whoever's done first can immediately go on to start working on the second loop. Or, one could put the two chunks of codes each in a section, or task. In general, you have a lot of control over what threads do and how they do it within a parallel section; whereas once you end the parallel section, you lose that flexibility - everything has to join together and you're done.