Why this OpenMP parallel for loop doesn't work properly? - c

Question

I would like to implement OpenMP to parallelize my code. I am starting from a very basic example to understand how it works, but I am missing something...
So, my example looks like this, without parallelization:
int main() {
...
for (i = 0; i < n-1; i++) {
u[i+1] = (1+h)*u[i]; // Euler
v[i+1] = v[i]/(1-h); // implicit Euler
}
...
return 0;
}
Where I omitted some parts in the "..." because are not relevant. It works, and if I print the u[] and v[] arrays on a file, I get the expected results.
Now, if I try to parallelize it just by adding:
#include <omp.h>
int main() {
...
omp_set_num_threads(2);
#pragma omp parallel for
for (i = 0; i < n-1; i++) {
u[i+1] = (1+h)*u[i]; // Euler
v[i+1] = v[i]/(1-h); // implicit Euler
}
...
return 0;
}
The code compiles and the program runs, BUT the u[] and v[] arrays are half full of zeros.
If I set omp_set_num_threads( 4 ), I get three quarters of zeros.
If I set omp_set_num_threads( 1 ), I get the expected result.
So it looks like only the first thread is being executed, while not the other ones...
What am I doing wrong?

Answer 1

OpenMP assumes that each iteration of a loop is independent of the others. When you write this:
for (i = 0; i < n-1; i++) {
u[i+1] = (1+h)*u[i]; // Euler
v[i+1] = v[i]/(1-h); // implicit Euler
}
The iteration i of the loop is modifying iteration i+1. Meanwhile, iteration i+1 might be happening at the same time.
Unless you can make the iterations independent, this isn't a good use-case for parallelism.
And, if you think about what Euler's method does, it should be obvious that it is not possible to parallelize the code you're working on in this way. Euler's method calculates the state of a system at time t+1 based on information at time t. Since you cannot knowing what's at t+1 without knowing first knowing t, there's no way to parallelize across the iterations of Euler's method.

Answer 2

u[i+1] = (1+h)*u[i];
v[i+1] = v[i]/(1-h);
is equivalent to
u[i] = pow((1+h), i)*u[0];
v[i] = v[0]*pow(1.0/(1-h), i);
therefore you can parallelize you code like this
#pragma omp parallel for
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
u[i] = pow((1+h), i)*u[0];
v[i] = v[0]*pow(1.0/(1-h), i);
}
If you want to mitigate the cost of the pow function you can do it once per thread rather than once per iteration like his (since t << n).
#pragma omp parallel
{
int nt = omp_get_num_threads();
int t = omp_get_thread_num();
int s = (t+0)*n/nt;
int f = (t+1)*n/nt;
u[s] = pow((1+h), s)*u[0];
v[s] = v[0]*pow(1.0/(1-h), s);
for(int i=s; i<f-1; i++) {
u[i+1] = (1+h)*u[i];
v[i+1] = v[i]/(1-h);
}
}
You can also write your own pow(double, int) function optimized for integer powers.
Note that the relationship I used is not in fact 100% equivalent because floating point arithmetic is not associative. That's not usually a problem but it's something one should be aware of.

Answer 3

Before parallelizing your code you must identify its concurrency, i.e. the set of tasks that are logically happening at the same time and then figure out a way to make them actually happen in parallel.
As mentioned above, this is a not a good example to apply parallelism on due to the fact that there is no concurrency in its nature. Attempting to use parallelism like that will lead to wrong results, due to the so-called race conditions.
If you just wanna learn how OpenMP works, try to come up with examples where you can clearly identify conceptually independent tasks. One of the most simple I can think of would be computing the area under a curve by means of integration.

Answer 4

Welcome to the parallel ( or "just"-concurrent ) plurality of computing realities.
Why?
Any non-sequential schedule of processing the loop will have problems with hidden ( not correctly handled ) breach of data-{-access | -value}
integrity in time.
A pure-[SERIAL] flow of processing is free from such dangers as the principally serialised steps indirectly introduce ( right by a rigid order of executing nothing but a one-step-after-another as a sequence ) order, in which there is no chance to "touch" the same memory location twice or more times at the same time.
This "peace-of-mind" is inadvertently lost, once a process goes into a "just"-[CONCURRENT] or the true-[PARALLEL] processing.
Suddenly there is an almost random order ( in a case of a "just"-[CONCURRENT] ) or a principally "immediate" singularity ( avoiding any original meaning of "order" - in the case of a true-[PARALLEL] code execution mode -- like a robot, having 6DoF, arrives into each and every trajectory-point in a true-[PARALLEL] fashion, driving all 6DoF-axes in parallel, not a one-after-another, in a pure-[SERIAL]-manner, not in a some-now-some-other-later-and-the-rest-as-it-gets in a "just"-[CONCURRENT] fashion, as the 3D-trajectory of robot-arm will become hardly predictable and mutual collisions would be often on a car assembly line ... ).
Solution:
Using either a defensive tool, called atomic operations, or a principal approach - design (b)locking-free algorithm, where possible, or explicitly signal and coordinate reads and writes ( sure, at a cost in excess-time and degraded performance ), so as to warrant the values will not get damaged into an inconsistent digital trash, if protective steps ( ensuring all "old"-writes get safely "through" before any "next"-reads go ahead to grab a "right"-value ) were not coded in ( as was demonstrated above ).
Epilogue:
Using a tool, like OpenMP for problems, where it cannot bring any advantage, will result in spending time and decreased performance ( as there are needs to handle all tool-related overheads, while there is literally zero net-effect of parallelism in cases, where the algorithm does not allow any parallelism to be enjoyed ), so one finally pays ways more then one finally gets.
A good point to learn about OpenMP best practices could be sources for example from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( indeed very competent ) and similar publications on using OpenMP.