This should be very simple but I could not find an exhaustive answer:
I need to perform A+B = C with matrices, where A and B are two matrices of unknown size (they could be 2x2 or 20.000x20.000 as greatest value)
Should I use CUBLAS with Sgemm function to calculate?
I need the maximum speed achievable so I thought of CUBLAS library which should be well-optimized
For any sort of technical computing, you should always use optimized libraries when available. Existing libraries, used by hundreds of other people, are going to be better tested and better optimized than anything you do yourself, and the time you don't spend writing (and debugging, and optimizing) that function yourself can be better spent working on the actual high-level problem you want to solve instead of re-discovering things other people have already implemented. This is just basic specialization of labour stuff; focus on the compute problem you want to solve, and let people who spend their days professionally writing GPGPU matrix routines do that for you.
Only when you are sure that existing libraries don't do what you need -- maybe they solve too general a problem, or make certain assumptions that don't hold in your case -- should you roll your own.
I agree with the others that in this particular case, the operation is pretty straightforward and it's feasible to DIY; but if you're going to be doing anything else with those matricies once you're done adding them, you'd be best off using optimized BLAS routines for whatever platform you're on.
What you want to do would be trivial to implement in CUDA and will be bandwidth limited.
And since CUBLAS5.0, cublasgeam can be used for that. It computes the weighted sum of 2 optionally transposed matrices.
Related
I have a problem that requires me to do eigendecomposition and matrix multiplication of many (~4k) small (~3x3) square Hermitian matrices. In particular, I need each work item to perform eigendecomposition of one such matrix, and then perform two matrix multiplications. Thus, the work that each thread has to do is rather minimal, and the full job should be highly parallelizable.
Unfortunately, it seems all the available OpenCL LAPACKs are for delegating operations on large matrices to the GPU rather than for doing smaller linear algebra operations inside an OpenCL kernel. As I'd rather not implement matrix multiplcation and eigendecomposition for arbitrarily sized matrices in OpenCL myself, I was hoping someone here might know of a suitable library for the job?
I'm aware that OpenCL might be getting built-in matrix operations at some point since the matrix type is reserved, but that is not really of much use right now. There is a similar question here from 2011, but it pretty much just says to roll your own, so I'm hoping the situation has improved since then.
In general, my experience with libraries like LAPACK, fftw, cuFFT, etc. is that when you want to do many really small problems like this, you are better off writing your own for performance. Those libraries are usually written for generality, so you can often beat their performance for specific small problems, especially if you can use unique properties of your particular problem.
I realize you don't want to hear "roll your own" but for this type of problem it is really the best thing to do IMO. You might find a library to do this, but considering the code that you really want (for performance) will not generalize, I doubt it exists. You'll be looking specifically for code to find the eigenvalues of 3x3 matrices. That's less of a library and more of a random code snippet with a suitable license that you can manipulate to take advantage of your specific problem.
In this specific case, you can find the eigenvalues of a 3x3 matrix with the textbook method using the characteristic polynomial. Remember that there is a relatively simple closed form solution for cubic equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_function#General_formula_for_roots.
While I think it is very likely that this approach would be much faster than iterative methods, it would be wise to verify that if performance is an issue.
I have written a new algorithm for something. Now I need to compare it with existing methods, some of which are old about 10 years.
The idea I had is to look at benchmarks of different processors over the years in order to establish how much faster my processor (i7-920) is than average processor from 2003. Then I would simply divide old methods' execution time by the speedup factor and use those numbers to compare with my own algorithm.
Has something like this been done? So I don't redo the existing work.
Can such a comparison be done some other way?
Are there some scientific papers written about such comparisons which I can reference?
I don't know which of these are possible for you, but here's a list of options I can think of:
Run their implementation side-by-side on your machine against yours.
This is the best option.
Rewrite their implementations and do (1).
You preferably need to compare it against their test to ensure you get vaguely similar results.
Find a library that implements their algorithm (or multiple libraries) and do (1).
I suggest multiple libraries, if possible, since a single one may not have implemented the algorithm efficiently. You may also want to compare these against their test.
Compare the algorithms mathematically.
This may be difficult, but it's not impossible.
Do what you presented.
(a) I would not recommend this as there are other determining factors in your computer other than the processor speed that affect the speed of an algorithm. Getting an equation that perfectly balances these will likely be very difficult.
(b) There is a massive difference between top and bottom of the line computers, so using the average is not a particularly good idea. If the author didn't provide details regarding this, I'm afraid your benchmark is not likely to be too accurate.
Go out and buy a machine of similar specs to the one used by the desired test to benchmark on.
A 10-year-old machine should be pretty cheap, if you can find one. Also, see (5.b).
Contact the author to allow for any of the other options.
Papers often provide contact details of the authors, or you should be able to find them elsewhere if they have any sort of online presence and you're half-decent at using Google.
If I were reviewing your results, I would be annoyed if you attempted to demonstrate less than an order of magnitude speedup this way. There are a lot of variables determining algorithm performance, and I would be skeptical that a generic benchmark could capture the right ones. My gold standard is old and new algorithms implemented by the same programmer, with similar effort made to optimize, running on the same hardware. Using the previous authors' implementation instead of making a new one is commonplace in the experimental algorithms literature, but using different hardware isn't.
Algorithmic performance is usually measured in big-O terms, for which it is better to count basic operations, like comparisons, and do it for a range of input sizes.
If you must measure overall time, at least eliminate other sources of difference.
As #larsmans said, do it on the same processor.
Also, if there is existing work, there's no harm in repeating it.
Generally, in science, that's a good thing.
You should attempt to reduce the amount of differing factors between the two runs. I think just run-timing the two algorithms side by side on the same machine and/or comparing their Big O times are both equally valid and important. You should also attempt to use updated libraries and other external functions; using outdated ones my also be the cause of timing results.
I have an application that requires millions of subtractions and remainders, i originally programmed this algorithm inside of C#.Net but it takes five minutes to process this information and i need it faster than that.
I have considered perl and that seems to be the best alternative now. Vb.net was slower in testing. C++ may be better also. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
You need a compiled language like Fortran, C, or C++. Other languages are designed to give you flexibility, object-orientation, or other advantages, and assume absolutely fastest performance is not your highest priority.
Know how to get maximum performance out of a single thread, and after you have done so investigate sharing the work across multiple cores, for example with MPI. To get maximum performance in a single thread, one thing I do is single-step it at the machine instruction level, to make sure it's not dawdling about in stuff that could be removed.
Some calculations are regular enough to take profit of GPGPUs: recent graphic cards are essentially specialized massively parallel numerical co-processors. For instance, you could code your numerical kernels in OpenCL. Otherwise, learn C++11 (not some earlier version of the C++ standard) or C. And in many cases Ocaml could be nearly as fast as C++ but much easier to code with.
Perhaps your problem can be handled by scilab or R, I did not understand it enough to help more.
And you might take advantage of your multi-core processor by e.g. using Pthreads or MPI
At last, the Linux operating system is perhaps better to deal with massive calculations. It is significant that most super computers use it today.
If execution speed is the highest priority, that usually means Fortran.
Try Julia: its killing feature is being easy to code in a high level concise way, while keeping performances at the same order of magnitude of Fortran/C.
PARI/GP is the best I have used so far. It's written in C.
Try to look at DMelt mathematical program. The program calls Java libraries. Java virtual machine can optimize long mathematical calculations for you.
The standard tool for mathmatic numerical operations in engineering is often Matlab (or as free alternatives octave or the already mentioned scilab).
I need to make a matrix/vector multiplication in Matlab of very large sizes: "A" is an 655360 by 5 real-valued matrix that are not necessarily sparse and "B" is a 655360 by 1 real-valued vector. My question is how to compute: B'*A efficiently.
I have notice a slight time improvement by computing A'*B instead, which gives a column vector. But still it is quite slow (I need to perform this operation several times in the program).
With a little bit search I found an interesting Matlab toolbox MTIMESX by James Tursa, which I hoped would improve the above matrix multiplication performance. After several trials, I can only have very marginal gains over the Matlab native matrix multiplication.
Any suggestions about how should I rewrite A'*B so that the operation is more efficient? Thanks.
Matlab's raison d'etre is doing matrix computations. I would be fairly surprised if you could significantly outperform its built-in matrix multiplication with hand-crafted tools. First of all, you should make sure your multiplication can actually be performed significantly faster. You could do this by implementing a similar multiplication in C++ with Eigen.
I have had good results with matlab matrix multiplication using the GPU
In order to avoid the transpose operation, you could try:
sum(bsxfun(#times, A, B), 2)
But I would be astonished it was faster than the direct version. See #thiton's answer.
Also look at http://www.mathworks.co.uk/company/newsletters/news_notes/june07/patterns.html to see why the column-vector-based version is faster than the row-vector-based version.
Matlab is built using fairly optimized libraries (BLAS, etc.), so you can't easily improve upon it from within Matlab. Where you can improve is to get a better BLAS, such as one optimized for your processor - this will enable better use of the caches by getting appropriately sized blocks of data from main memory. Take a look into creating your own compiled versions of ATLAS, ACML, MKL, and Goto BLAS.
I wouldn't try to solve this one particular multiplication unless it's really killing you. Changing up the BLAS is likely to lead to a happier solution, especially if you're not currently making use of multicore processors.
Your #1 option, if this is your bottleneck, is to re-examine your algorithm. See this question Optimizing MATLAB code for a great example of how choosing a different algorithm reduced runtime by three orders of magnitude.
I am looking for an efficient eigensolver ( language not important, although I would be programming in C#), that utilizes the multi-core features found in modern CPU. Being able to work directly with pardiso solver is a major plus. My matrix are mostly sparse matrix, so an ideal solver should be able to take advantage of this fact and greatly enhance the memory usage and performance.
So far I have only found LAPACK and ARPACK. The LAPACK, as implemented in Intel MKL, is a good candidate, as it offers multi-core optimization. But it seems that the drivers inside the LAPACK don't work directly with pardiso solver, furthermore, it seems that they don't take advantage of sparse matrix ( but I am not sure on this point).
ARPACK, on the other hand, seems to be pretty hard to setup in Windows environment, and the parallel version, PARPACK, doesn't work so well. The bonus point is that it can work with pardiso solver.
The best would be Intel MKL + ARPACK with multi-core speedup. Not sure whether there is any existing implementations that already do what I want to do?
I'm working on a problem with needs very similar to the ones you state. I'm considering FEAST:
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/~polizzi/feast/index.htm
I'm trying to make it work right now, but it seems perfect. I'm interested in hearing what your experience with it is, if you use it.
cheers
Ned
Have a look at the Eigen2 library.
I've implemented it already, in C#.
The idea is that one must convert the matrix format in CSR format. Then, one can use MKL to compute linear equation solving algorithm ( using pardiso solver), the matrix-vector manipulation.