I am doing the Udacity course on parallel programming (homework 3) and can not figure out why I can't get the maximum in the array using parallel reduction (Udacity forums yet to provide solution). I am pretty certain that I have set up the arrays properly and that the algorithm is correct. I suspect that I have a problem with memory management (accessing out of bounds, incorrect array sizes, copying to and from). Please help! I am running this in the Udacity environment, not locally. Below is the code that I am currently using. For some reason when I change the fmaxf's to fminf's it does find the minimum.
#include "reference_calc.cpp"
#include "utils.h"
#include "math.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <cmath>
__global__ void reduce_max_kernel(float *d_out, const float *d_logLum, int size) {
// Reduce log Lum with Max Operator
int myId = threadIdx.x + blockDim.x * blockIdx.x;
int tid = threadIdx.x;
extern __shared__ float temp[];
if (myId < size) {
temp[tid] = d_logLum[myId];
}
else {
temp[tid] = d_logLum[tid];
}
for (unsigned int s = blockDim.x / 2; s > 0; s >>= 1) {
if (tid < s) {
if (myId < size) {
temp[tid] = fmaxf(d_logLum[myId + s], d_logLum[myId]);
} else {
temp[tid] = d_logLum[tid];
}
}
__syncthreads();
}
if (tid == 0) {
d_out[blockIdx.x] = temp[0];
}
}
__global__ void reduce_max_kernel2(float *d_out, float *d_in) {
// Reduce log Lum with Max Operator
int myId = threadIdx.x + blockDim.x * blockIdx.x;
int tid = threadIdx.x;
for (unsigned int s = blockDim.x >> 1; s > 0; s >>= 1) {
if (tid < s) {
d_in[myId] = fmaxf(d_in[myId + s], d_in[myId]);
}
__syncthreads();
}
if (tid == 0) {
d_out[0] = d_in[0];
}
}
void your_histogram_and_prefixsum(const float* const d_logLuminance,
unsigned int* const d_cdf,
float &min_logLum,
float &max_logLum,
const size_t numRows,
const size_t numCols,
const size_t numBins)
{
//TODO
/*Here are the steps you need to implement
1) find the minimum and maximum value in the input logLuminance channel
store in min_logLum and max_logLum
2) subtract them to find the range
3) generate a histogram of all the values in the logLuminance channel using
the formula: bin = (lum[i] - lumMin) / lumRange * numBins
4) Perform an exclusive scan (prefix sum) on the histogram to get
the cumulative distribution of luminance values (this should go in the
incoming d_cdf pointer which already has been allocated for you) */
//int size = 1 << 18;
int points = numRows * numCols;
int logPoints = ceil(log(points)/log(2));
int sizePow = logPoints;
int size = pow(2, sizePow);
int numThreads = 1024;
int numBlocks = size / numThreads;
float *d_out;
float *d_max_out;
checkCudaErrors(cudaMalloc((void **) &d_out, numBlocks * sizeof(float)));
checkCudaErrors(cudaMalloc((void **) &d_max_out, sizeof(float)));
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
reduce_max_kernel<<<numBlocks, numThreads, sizeof(float)*numThreads>>>(d_out, d_logLuminance, points);
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
reduce_max_kernel2<<<1, numBlocks>>>(d_max_out, d_out);
float h_out_max;
checkCudaErrors(cudaMemcpy(&h_out_max, d_max_out, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost));
printf("%f\n", h_out_max);
checkCudaErrors(cudaFree(d_max_out));
checkCudaErrors(cudaFree(d_out));
}
You are trying to reproduce the reduce2 reduction kernel of the CUDA SDK reduction sample. Robert Crovella has already spot two mistakes that you have made in your code. Besides them, I think you are also mistakenly initializing the shared memory.
Below, please find a complete working example constructed around your attempt. I have left the wrong instructions of your approach.
#include <thrust\device_vector.h>
#define BLOCKSIZE 256
/********************/
/* CUDA ERROR CHECK */
/********************/
#define gpuErrchk(ans) { gpuAssert((ans), __FILE__, __LINE__); }
inline void gpuAssert(cudaError_t code, char *file, int line, bool abort=true)
{
if (code != cudaSuccess)
{
fprintf(stderr,"GPUassert: %s %s %d\n", cudaGetErrorString(code), file, line);
if (abort) { getchar(); exit(code); }
}
}
/*******************************************************/
/* CALCULATING THE NEXT POWER OF 2 OF A CERTAIN NUMBER */
/*******************************************************/
unsigned int nextPow2(unsigned int x)
{
--x;
x |= x >> 1;
x |= x >> 2;
x |= x >> 4;
x |= x >> 8;
x |= x >> 16;
return ++x;
}
__global__ void reduce_max_kernel(float *d_out, const float *d_logLum, int size) {
int tid = threadIdx.x; // Local thread index
int myId = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x; // Global thread index
extern __shared__ float temp[];
// --- Loading data to shared memory. All the threads contribute to loading the data to shared memory.
temp[tid] = (myId < size) ? d_logLum[myId] : -FLT_MAX;
// --- Your solution
// if (myId < size) { temp[tid] = d_logLum[myId]; } else { temp[tid] = d_logLum[tid]; }
// --- Before going further, we have to make sure that all the shared memory loads have been completed
__syncthreads();
// --- Reduction in shared memory. Only half of the threads contribute to reduction.
for (unsigned int s=blockDim.x/2; s>0; s>>=1)
{
if (tid < s) { temp[tid] = fmaxf(temp[tid], temp[tid + s]); }
// --- At the end of each iteration loop, we have to make sure that all memory operations have been completed
__syncthreads();
}
// --- Your solution
//for (unsigned int s = blockDim.x / 2; s > 0; s >>= 1) {
// if (tid < s) { if (myId < size) { temp[tid] = fmaxf(d_logLum[myId + s], d_logLum[myId]); } else { temp[tid] = d_logLum[tid]; } }
// __syncthreads();
//}
if (tid == 0) {
d_out[blockIdx.x] = temp[0];
}
}
/********/
/* MAIN */
/********/
int main()
{
const int N = 10;
thrust::device_vector<float> d_vec(N,3.f); d_vec[4] = 4.f;
int NumThreads = (N < BLOCKSIZE) ? nextPow2(N) : BLOCKSIZE;
int NumBlocks = (N + NumThreads - 1) / NumThreads;
// when there is only one warp per block, we need to allocate two warps
// worth of shared memory so that we don't index shared memory out of bounds
int smemSize = (NumThreads <= 32) ? 2 * NumThreads * sizeof(int) : NumThreads * sizeof(int);
// --- reduce2
thrust::device_vector<float> d_vec_block(NumBlocks);
reduce_max_kernel<<<NumBlocks, NumThreads, smemSize>>>(thrust::raw_pointer_cast(d_vec_block.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(d_vec.data()), N);
// --- The last part of the reduction, which would be expensive to perform on the device, is executed on the host
thrust::host_vector<float> h_vec_block(d_vec_block);
float result_reduce0 = -FLT_MAX;
for (int i=0; i<NumBlocks; i++) result_reduce0 = fmax(h_vec_block[i], result_reduce0);
printf("Result = %f\n",result_reduce0);
}
Related
I am trying to compile an MPI program with mpicc. The compiler complains only that there is no reference to MPI_RECIVE and MPI_SEND, and ends the compile error. I have #include in the .c file.
Can someone tell me how I can fix this?
Here ist the Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <mpi.h>
#include "random.h"
#include "md5tool.h"
/* horizontal size of the configuration */
#define XSIZE 1024
/* "ADT" State and line of states (plus border) */
typedef char State;
typedef State Line[XSIZE + 2];
/* determine random integer between 0 and n-1 */
#define randInt(n) ((int)(nextRandomLEcuyer() * n))
/* random starting configuration */
static void initConfig(Line *buf, int lines){
int x, y;
initRandomLEcuyer(424243);
for (y = 1; y <= lines; y++) {
for (x = 1; x <= XSIZE; x++) {
buf[y][x] = randInt(100) >= 50;
}
}
}
/* annealing rule from ChoDro96 page 34
* the table is used to map the number of nonzero
* states in the neighborhood to the new state
*/
static State anneal[10] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1};
/* a: pointer to array; x,y: coordinates; result: n-th element of anneal,
where n is the number of neighbors */
#define transition(a, x, y) \
(anneal[(a)[(y)-1][(x)-1] + (a)[(y)][(x)-1] + (a)[(y)+1][(x)-1] +\
(a)[(y)-1][(x) ] + (a)[(y)][(x) ] + (a)[(y)+1][(x) ] +\
(a)[(y)-1][(x)+1] + (a)[(y)][(x)+1] + (a)[(y)+1][(x)+1]])
/* treat torus like boundary conditions */
static void boundary(Line *buf, int lines){
int x,y;
for (y = 0; y <= lines+1; y++) {
/* copy rightmost column to the buffer column 0 */
buf[y][0 ] = buf[y][XSIZE];
/* copy leftmost column to the buffer column XSIZE + 1 */
buf[y][1+1] = buf[y][1 ];
}
for (x = 0; x <= XSIZE+1; x++) {
/* copy bottommost row to buffer row 0 */
buf[0][x ] = buf[lines][x];
/* copy topmost row to buffer row lines + 1 */
buf[lines+1][x] = buf[1][x ];
}
}
/* make one simulation iteration with lines lines.
* old configuration is in from, new one is written to to.
*/
//umschreiben
/**
static void simulate(Line *from, Line *to, int lines){
boundary(from, lines);
for (y = 1; y <= lines; y++) {
for (x = 1; x <= XSIZE; x++) {
to[y][x ] = transition(from, x , y);
}
}
}
*/
/* --------------------- measurement ---------------------------------- */
int main(int argc, char** argv){
int lines, its;
int i;
Line *from, *to, *temp, *next;
char* hash;
assert(argc == 3);
lines = atoi(argv[1]);
its = atoi(argv[2]);
from = malloc((lines + 2) * sizeof(Line));
to = malloc((lines + 2) * sizeof(Line));
MPI_Init(NULL, NULL);
// Get the number of processes
int world_size;
MPI_Comm_size(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &world_size);
// Get the rank of the process
int world_rank;
MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &world_rank);
if(world_rank == 0){
int y;
next = malloc((lines + 2) * sizeof(Line));
initConfig(from, lines);
for (i = 0; i < its; i++) {
boundary(from, lines);
int z;
for(z = 0; z < world_size;z++){
if(z !=world_rank ){
MPI_SEND(from,(lines + 2) * sizeof(Line),MPI_CHARACTER,z,0,MPI_COMM_WORLD);
}
}
MPI_Status status;
for(z = 0; z < world_size;z++){
if(z !=world_rank ){
MPI_RECIVE(next,(lines + 2) * sizeof(Line),MPI_CHARACTER,z,1,&status);
if(status.MPI_ERROR){
//TODO
MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD,1);
}
for (y = 1; y <= (lines%world_size+lines/world_size); y++) {
stpcpy(to[y*z],next[y*z]);
}
}
}
temp = from;
from = to;
to = temp;
}
hash = getMD5DigestStr(from[1], sizeof(Line) * (lines));
printf("hash: %s\n", hash);
free(next);
}else{
int x,y;
MPI_Status status;
for(i = 0; i < its; i++){
MPI_RECIVE(from,(lines + 2) * sizeof(Line),MPI_CHARACTER,0,0,&status);
if(status.MPI_ERROR){
MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD,2);
}
for (y = 1; y <= (lines%world_size+lines/world_size); y++) {
for (x = 1; x <= XSIZE; x++) {
to[y*world_rank][x ] = transition(from, x , y*world_rank);
}
}
MPI_SEND(to,(lines + 2) * sizeof(Line),MPI_CHARACTER,0,1,MPI_COMM_WORLD);
}
}
MPI_Finalize();
free(from);
free(to);
free(hash);
return 0;
}
This is a C a Sequence implementation which I wrote for the university as a homework assignment.
Are you talking about MPI_Send and MPI_Recv ?
Don't know about any MPI_SEND or MPI_RECIV function...
I think you just mispelled them.
BTW: here is a great tutorial about how to use them http://mpitutorial.com/tutorials/mpi-send-and-receive/
I want create random int array in CUDA. And I need to check for duplicity on array index 0-9, 10-19 ... and repair them.
Any idea, how to make it effective? I really dont want check each element with each other.
Here is my code:
__global__ void generateP(int *d_p, unsigned long seed)
{
int i = X * blockIdx.x + threadIdx.x * X;
int buffer[X];
curandState state;
curand_init(seed, i, 0, &state);
for (int j = 0; j < X; j++)
{
float random = HB + (curand_uniform(&state) * (LB - HB));
buffer[j] = (int)truncf(random);
}
// TODO unique check and repair duplicity
for (int k = 0; k < X; k++)
{
d_p[i] = buffer[k];
i++;
}
}
Is there in CUDA some kind of Contains function? Thanks for help.
You really are asking the wrong question here. You should be looking for a way of randomly ordering a list of unique values, rather than attempting to fill a list with unique random numbers by searching and replacing duplicates repeatedly until you have the unique list. The latter is terribly inefficient and a poor fit to a data parallel execution model like CUDA.
There are simple, robust algorithms for randomly shuffling list of values that only require at most N calls to a random generator in order to shuffle a list of N values. The Fisher-Yates shuffle is almost universally used for this.
I'm not going to comment much on this code except to say that it illustrates one approach to doing this, using one thread per list. It isn't intended to be performant, just a teaching example to get you started. I think it probably does close to what you are asking for (more based on your previous attempt at this question than this one). I recommend you study it as a lead-in to writing your own implementation which does whatever it is you are trying to do.
#include <ctime>
#include <iostream>
#include <curand_kernel.h>
struct source
{
int baseval;
__device__ source(int _b) : baseval(_b) {};
__device__ int operator()(int v) { return baseval + v; };
};
__device__ int urandint(int minval, int maxval, curandState_t& state)
{
float rval = curand_uniform(&state);
rval *= (float(maxval) - float(minval) + 0.99999999f);
rval += float(minval);
return (int)truncf(rval);
}
template<int X>
__global__ void kernel(int* out, int N, unsigned long long seed)
{
int tidx = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
if (tidx < N) {
curandState_t state;
curand_init(seed, tidx, 0, &state);
int seq[X];
source vals(tidx * X);
// Fisher Yeats Shuffle straight from Wikipedia
#pragma unroll
for(int i=0; i<X; ++i) {
int j = urandint(0, i, state);
if (j != i)
seq[i] = seq[j];
seq[j] = vals(i);
}
// Copy local shuffled sequence to output array
int* dest = &out[X * tidx];
memcpy(dest, &seq[0], X * sizeof(int));
}
}
int main(void)
{
const int X = 10;
const int nsets = 200;
int* d_result;
size_t sz = size_t(nsets) * sizeof(int) * size_t(X);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_result, sz);
int tpb = 32;
int nblocks = (nsets/tpb) + ((nsets%tpb !=0) ? 1 : 0);
kernel<X><<<nblocks, tpb>>>(d_result, nsets, std::time(0));
int h_result[nsets][X];
cudaMemcpy(&h_result[0][0], d_result, sz, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
for(int i=0; i<nsets; ++i) {
std::cout << i << " : ";
for(int j=0; j<X; ++j) {
std::cout << h_result[i][j] << ",";
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
cudaDeviceReset();
return 0;
}
I'm writing implementation of Sieve of Eratosthenes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes) on GPU. But no sth like this - http://developer-resource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cuda-sieve-of-eratosthenes.html
Method:
Creating n-element array with default values 0/1 (0 - prime, 1 - no) and passing it on GPU (I know that it can be done directly in kernel but it's not problem in this moment).
Each thread in block checks multiples of a single number. Each block checks in total sqrt(n) possibilities. Each block == different interval.
Marking multiples as 1 and passing data back to the host.
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define THREADS 1024
__global__ void kernel(int *global, int threads) {
extern __shared__ int cache[];
int tid = threadIdx.x + 1;
int offset = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
int number = offset + tid;
cache[tid - 1] = global[number];
__syncthreads();
int start = offset + 1;
int end = offset + threads;
for (int i = start; i <= end; i++) {
if ((i != tid) && (tid != 1) && (i % tid == 0)) {
cache[i - offset - 1] = 1;
}
}
__syncthreads();
global[number] = cache[tid - 1];
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int *array, *dev_array;
int n = atol(argv[1]);
int n_sqrt = floor(sqrt((double)n));
size_t array_size = n * sizeof(int);
array = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
array[0] = 1;
array[1] = 1;
for (int i = 2; i < n; i++) {
array[i] = 0;
}
cudaMalloc((void**)&dev_array, array_size);
cudaMemcpy(dev_array, array, array_size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
int threads = min(n_sqrt, THREADS);
int blocks = n / threads;
int shared = threads * sizeof(int);
kernel<<<blocks, threads, shared>>>(dev_array, threads);
cudaMemcpy(array, dev_array, array_size, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (array[i] == 0) {
count++;
}
}
printf("Count: %d\n", count);
return 0;
}
Run:
./sieve 10240000
It works correctly when n = 16, 64, 1024, 102400... but for n = 10240000 I getting incorrect result. Where is problem?
This code has a variety of problems, in my view.
You are fundamentally accessing items out of range. Consider this sequence in your kernel:
int tid = threadIdx.x + 1;
int offset = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
int number = offset + tid;
cache[tid - 1] = global[number];
You (in some cases -- see below) have launched a thread array exactly equal in size to your global array. So what happens when the highest numbered thread runs the above code? number = threadIdx.x+1+blockIdx.x*blockDim.x. This number index will be one beyond the end of your array. This is true for many possible values of n. This problem would have been evident to you if you had either used proper cuda error checking or had run your code with cuda-memcheck. You should always do those things when you are having trouble with a CUDA code and also before asking for help from others.
The code only has a chance of working correctly if the input n is a perfect square. The reason for this is contained in these lines of code (as well as dependencies in the kernel):
int n = atol(argv[1]);
int n_sqrt = floor(sqrt((double)n));
...
int threads = min(n_sqrt, THREADS);
int blocks = n / threads;
(note that the correct function here would be atoi not atol, but I digress...) Unless n is a perfect square, the resultant n_sqrt will be somewhat less than the actual square root of n. This will lead you to compute a total thread array that is smaller than the necessary size. (It's OK if you don't believe me at this point. Run the code I will post below and input a size like 1025, then see if the number of threads * blocks is of sufficient size to cover an array of 1025.)
As you've stated:
Each block checks in total sqrt(n) possibilities.
Hopefully this also points out the danger of non-perfect square n, but we must now ask "what if n is larger than the square of the largest threadblock size (1024)? The answer is that the code will not work correctly in many cases - and your chosen input of 10240000, although a perfect square, exceeds 1024^2 (1048576) and it does not work for this reason. Your algorithm (which I claim is not a Sieve of Eratosthenes) requires that each block be able to check sqrt(n) possibilities, just as you stated in the question. When that no longer becomes possible because of the limits of threads per block, then your algorithm starts to break.
Here is a code that makes some attempt to fix issue #1 above, and at least give an explanation for the failures associated with #2 and #3:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define THREADS 1024
#define MAX 10240000
#define cudaCheckErrors(msg) \
do { \
cudaError_t __err = cudaGetLastError(); \
if (__err != cudaSuccess) { \
fprintf(stderr, "Fatal error: %s (%s at %s:%d)\n", \
msg, cudaGetErrorString(__err), \
__FILE__, __LINE__); \
fprintf(stderr, "*** FAILED - ABORTING\n"); \
exit(1); \
} \
} while (0)
__global__ void kernel(int *global, int threads) {
extern __shared__ int cache[];
int tid = threadIdx.x + 1;
int offset = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
int number = offset + tid;
if ((blockIdx.x != (gridDim.x-1)) || (threadIdx.x != (blockDim.x-1))){
cache[tid - 1] = global[number];
__syncthreads();
int start = offset + 1;
int end = offset + threads;
for (int i = start; i <= end; i++) {
if ((i != tid) && (tid != 1) && (i % tid == 0)) {
cache[i - offset - 1] = 1;
}
}
__syncthreads();
global[number] = cache[tid - 1];}
}
int cpu_sieve(int n){
int limit = floor(sqrt(n));
int *test_arr = (int *)malloc(n*sizeof(int));
if (test_arr == NULL) return -1;
memset(test_arr, 0, n*sizeof(int));
for (int i = 2; i < limit; i++)
if (!test_arr[i]){
int j = i*i;
while (j <= n){
test_arr[j] = 1;
j += i;}}
int count = 0;
for (int i = 2; i < n; i++)
if (!test_arr[i]) count++;
return count;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int *array, *dev_array;
if (argc != 2) {printf("must supply n as command line parameter\n"); return 1;}
int n = atoi(argv[1]);
if ((n < 1) || (n > MAX)) {printf("n out of range %d\n", n); return 1;}
int n_sqrt = floor(sqrt((double)n));
size_t array_size = n * sizeof(int);
array = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
array[0] = 1;
array[1] = 1;
for (int i = 2; i < n; i++) {
array[i] = 0;
}
cudaMalloc((void**)&dev_array, array_size);
cudaMemcpy(dev_array, array, array_size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
int threads = min(n_sqrt, THREADS);
int blocks = n / threads;
int shared = threads * sizeof(int);
printf("threads = %d, blocks = %d\n", threads, blocks);
kernel<<<blocks, threads, shared>>>(dev_array, threads);
cudaMemcpy(array, dev_array, array_size, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaCheckErrors("some error");
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (array[i] == 0) {
count++;
}
}
printf("Count: %d\n", count);
printf("CPU Sieve: %d\n", cpu_sieve(n));
return 0;
}
There are a couple of issues, I think, but here's a pointer to the actual problem: The sieve of Eratosthenes removes iteratively multiples of already encountered prime numbers, and you want to separate the work-load into thread-blocks, where each thread-block operates on a piece of shared memory (cache, in your example). Thread-blocks, however, are generally independent from all other thread-blocks and cannot easily communicate with one another. One example to illustrate the problem: The thread with index 0 in thread-block with index 0 removes multiples of 2. Thread blocks with index > 0 have no way to know about this.
I'm writing a CUDA kernel and each thread has to complete the following task: suppose I have an ordered array a of n unsigned integers (the first one is always 0) stored in shared memory, each thread has to find the array index i such that a[i] ≤ threadIdx.x and a[i + 1] > threadIdx.x.
A naive solution could be:
for (i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
if (a[i + 1] > threadIdx.x) break;
but I suppose this is not the optimal way to do it... can anyone suggest anything better?
Like Robert, I was thinking that a binary search has got to be faster that a naïve loop -- the upper bound of operation count for a binary search is O(log(n)), compared to O(N) for the loop.
My extremely simple implementation:
#include <iostream>
#include <climits>
#include <assert.h>
__device__ __host__
int midpoint(int a, int b)
{
return a + (b-a)/2;
}
__device__ __host__
int eval(int A[], int i, int val, int imin, int imax)
{
int low = (A[i] <= val);
int high = (A[i+1] > val);
if (low && high) {
return 0;
} else if (low) {
return -1;
} else {
return 1;
}
}
__device__ __host__
int binary_search(int A[], int val, int imin, int imax)
{
while (imax >= imin) {
int imid = midpoint(imin, imax);
int e = eval(A, imid, val, imin, imax);
if(e == 0) {
return imid;
} else if (e < 0) {
imin = imid;
} else {
imax = imid;
}
}
return -1;
}
__device__ __host__
int linear_search(int A[], int val, int imin, int imax)
{
int res = -1;
for(int i=imin; i<(imax-1); i++) {
if (A[i+1] > val) {
res = i;
break;
}
}
return res;
}
template<int version>
__global__
void search(int * source, int * result, int Nin, int Nout)
{
extern __shared__ int buff[];
int tid = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x*blockDim.x;
int val = INT_MAX;
if (tid < Nin) val = source[threadIdx.x];
buff[threadIdx.x] = val;
__syncthreads();
int res;
switch(version) {
case 0:
res = binary_search(buff, threadIdx.x, 0, blockDim.x);
break;
case 1:
res = linear_search(buff, threadIdx.x, 0, blockDim.x);
break;
}
if (tid < Nout) result[tid] = res;
}
int main(void)
{
const int inputLength = 128000;
const int isize = inputLength * sizeof(int);
const int outputLength = 256;
const int osize = outputLength * sizeof(int);
int * hostInput = new int[inputLength];
int * hostOutput = new int[outputLength];
int * deviceInput;
int * deviceOutput;
for(int i=0; i<inputLength; i++) {
hostInput[i] = -200 + 5*i;
}
cudaMalloc((void**)&deviceInput, isize);
cudaMalloc((void**)&deviceOutput, osize);
cudaMemcpy(deviceInput, hostInput, isize, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
dim3 DimBlock(256, 1, 1);
dim3 DimGrid(1, 1, 1);
DimGrid.x = (outputLength / DimBlock.x) +
((outputLength % DimBlock.x > 0) ? 1 : 0);
size_t shmsz = DimBlock.x * sizeof(int);
for(int i=0; i<5; i++) {
search<1><<<DimGrid, DimBlock, shmsz>>>(deviceInput, deviceOutput,
inputLength, outputLength);
}
for(int i=0; i<5; i++) {
search<0><<<DimGrid, DimBlock, shmsz>>>(deviceInput, deviceOutput,
inputLength, outputLength);
}
cudaMemcpy(hostOutput, deviceOutput, osize, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
for(int i=0; i<outputLength; i++) {
int idx = hostOutput[i];
int tidx = i % DimBlock.x;
assert( (hostInput[idx] <= tidx) && (tidx < hostInput[idx+1]) );
}
cudaDeviceReset();
return 0;
}
gave about a five times speed up compared to the loop:
>nvprof a.exe
======== NVPROF is profiling a.exe...
======== Command: a.exe
======== Profiling result:
Time(%) Time Calls Avg Min Max Name
60.11 157.85us 1 157.85us 157.85us 157.85us [CUDA memcpy HtoD]
32.58 85.55us 5 17.11us 16.63us 19.04us void search<int=1>(int*, int*, int, int)
6.52 17.13us 5 3.42us 3.35us 3.73us void search<int=0>(int*, int*, int, int)
0.79 2.08us 1 2.08us 2.08us 2.08us [CUDA memcpy DtoH]
I'm sure that someoneclever could do a lot better than that. But perhaps this gives you at least a few ideas.
can anyone suggest anything better?
A brute force approach would be to have each thread do a binary search (on threadIdx.x + 1).
// sets idx to the index of the first element in a that is
// equal to or larger than key
__device__ void bsearch_range(const int *a, const int key, const unsigned len_a, unsigned *idx){
unsigned lower = 0;
unsigned upper = len_a;
unsigned midpt;
while (lower < upper){
midpt = (lower + upper)>>1;
if (a[midpt] < key) lower = midpt +1;
else upper = midpt;
}
*idx = lower;
return;
}
__global__ void find_my_idx(const int *a, const unsigned len_a, int *my_idx){
unsigned idx = (blockDim.x * blockIdx.x) + threadIdx.x;
unsigned sp_a;
int val = idx+1;
bsearch_range(a, val, len_a, &sp_a);
my_idx[idx] = ((val-1) < a[sp_a]) ? sp_a:-1;
}
This is coded in browser, not tested. It's hacked from a piece of working code, however. If you have trouble making it work, I can revisit it. I don't recommend this approach on a device without caches (cc 1.x device).
This is actually searching on the full unique 1D thread index (blockDim.x * blockIdx.x + threadIdx.x + 1) You can change val to be anything you like.
You could also add an appropriate thread check, if the number of threads you intend to launch is greater than the length of your my_idx result vector.
I imagine there is a more clever approach that may use something akin to prefix sums.
This is the best algorithm so far. It's called: LPW Indexed Search
__global__ void find_position_lpw(int *a, int n)
{
int idx = threadIdx.x;
__shared__ int aux[ MAX_THREADS_PER_BLOCK /*1024*/ ];
aux[idx] = 0;
if (idx < n)
atomicAdd( &aux[a[idx]], 1); // atomics in case there are duplicates
__syncthreads();
int tmp;
for (int j = 1; j <= MAX_THREADS_PER_BLOCK / 2; j <<= 1)
{
if( idx >= j ) tmp = aux[idx - j];
__syncthreads();
if( idx >= j ) aux[idx] += tmp;
__syncthreads();
}
// result in "i"
int i = aux[idx] - 1;
// use "i" here...
// ...
}
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
I'm new to CUDA. To get my hands dirty, I tried writing a Sieve of Eratosthenes (for finding all the primes up to some number n).
There are a number of things I had to do to get it to work that it seems shouldn't have been necessary. I'm curious whether anyone knows of a more natural (and still CUDA-optimized) approach.
To take the entries marked as prime in the isPrime array, I had to do two separate kernel calls. The first counts the number of primes in each threadblock and assigns to each entry i the number of primes in that block less than i. Then I have to make a second call to add in the number of primes in all the previous blocks in order to get the final index.
But it's even worse than that, because to avoid heaps of concurrent reads, I had to store the number of primes in the block in a separate array at each of THREADS_PER_BLOCK indices effectively doubling the required memory for the algorithm. It seems like there should be a way to have all the threads read the same value for each block rather than have to copy it so many times.
Despite all this, there's still the problem of concurrent reads in the clearMultiples method. Especially for small primes like 2 and 3, every thread has to read the value in. Isn't there any way to deal with this?
Could anyone look at my code and tell me if there's anything obvious I could do that would be simpler or more efficient?
Is there anything I'm doing that's particularly inefficient (besides printing out all the primes at the end of course)?
Is it necessary to call synchronize after every kernel call?
Do I need to synchronize after memcpy's as well?
Finally, how come when I set THREADS_PER_BLOCK to 512 it doesn't work?
Thank you
#include <stdio.h>
#include <cuda.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <math.h>
#define MAX_BLOCKS 256
#define THREADS_PER_BLOCK 256 //Must be a power of 2
#define BLOCK_SPACE 2 * THREADS_PER_BLOCK
__global__ void initialize(int* isPrime, int n) {
int idx = blockIdx.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK + threadIdx.x;
int step = gridDim.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK;
int i;
for (i = idx; i <= 1; i += step) {
isPrime[i] = 0;
}
for (; i < n; i += step) {
isPrime[i] = 1;
}
}
__global__ void clearMultiples(int* isPrime, int* primeList, int startInd,
int endInd, int n) {
int yidx = blockIdx.y * blockDim.y + threadIdx.y;
int xidx = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int ystep = gridDim.y * blockDim.y;
int xstep = gridDim.x * blockDim.x;
for (int pnum = startInd + yidx; pnum < endInd; pnum += ystep) {
int p = primeList[pnum];
int pstart = p * (p + xidx);
int pstep = p * xstep;
for (int i = pstart; i < n; i += pstep) {
isPrime[i] = 0;
}
}
}
__device__ void makeCounts(int* isPrime, int* addend, int start, int stop) {
__shared__ int tmpCounts[BLOCK_SPACE];
__shared__ int dumbCounts[BLOCK_SPACE];
int idx = threadIdx.x;
tmpCounts[idx] = ((start + idx) < stop) ? isPrime[start + idx] : 0;
__syncthreads();
int numEntries = THREADS_PER_BLOCK;
int cstart = 0;
while (numEntries > 1) {
int prevStart = cstart;
cstart += numEntries;
numEntries /= 2;
if (idx < numEntries) {
int i1 = idx * 2 + prevStart;
tmpCounts[idx + cstart] = tmpCounts[i1] + tmpCounts[i1 + 1];
}
__syncthreads();
}
if (idx == 0) {
dumbCounts[cstart] = tmpCounts[cstart];
tmpCounts[cstart] = 0;
}
while (cstart > 0) {
int prevStart = cstart;
cstart -= numEntries * 2;
if (idx < numEntries) {
int v1 = tmpCounts[idx + prevStart];
int i1 = idx * 2 + cstart;
tmpCounts[i1 + 1] = tmpCounts[i1] + v1;
tmpCounts[i1] = v1;
dumbCounts[i1] = dumbCounts[i1 + 1] = dumbCounts[idx + prevStart];
}
numEntries *= 2;
__syncthreads();
}
if (start + idx < stop) {
isPrime[start + idx] = tmpCounts[idx];
addend[start + idx] = dumbCounts[idx];
}
}
__global__ void createCounts(int* isPrime, int* addend, int lb, int ub) {
int step = gridDim.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK;
for (int i = lb + blockIdx.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK; i < ub; i += step) {
int start = i;
int stop = min(i + step, ub);
makeCounts(isPrime, addend, start, stop);
}
}
__global__ void sumCounts(int* isPrime, int* addend, int lb, int ub,
int* totalsum) {
int idx = blockIdx.x;
int s = 0;
for (int i = lb + idx; i < ub; i += THREADS_PER_BLOCK) {
isPrime[i] += s;
s += addend[i];
}
if (idx == 0) {
*totalsum = s;
}
}
__global__ void condensePrimes(int* isPrime, int* primeList, int lb, int ub,
int primeStartInd, int primeCount) {
int idx = blockIdx.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK + threadIdx.x;
int step = gridDim.x * THREADS_PER_BLOCK;
for (int i = lb + idx; i < ub; i += step) {
int term = isPrime[i];
int nextTerm = i + 1 == ub ? primeCount : isPrime[i + 1];
if (term < nextTerm) {
primeList[primeStartInd + term] = i;
}
}
}
int main(void) {
printf("Enter upper bound:\n");
int n;
scanf("%d", &n);
int *isPrime, *addend, *numPrimes, *primeList;
cudaError_t t = cudaMalloc((void**) &isPrime, n * sizeof(int));
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaMalloc(&addend, n * sizeof(int));
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaMalloc(&numPrimes, sizeof(int));
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
int primeBound = 2 * n / log(n);
t = cudaMalloc(&primeList, primeBound * sizeof(int));
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
int numBlocks = min(MAX_BLOCKS,
(n + THREADS_PER_BLOCK - 1) / THREADS_PER_BLOCK);
initialize<<<numBlocks, THREADS_PER_BLOCK>>>(isPrime, n);
t = cudaDeviceSynchronize();
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
int bound = (int) ceil(sqrt(n));
int lb;
int ub = 2;
int primeStartInd = 0;
int primeEndInd = 0;
while (ub < n) {
if (primeEndInd > primeStartInd) {
int lowprime;
t = cudaMemcpy(&lowprime, primeList + primeStartInd, sizeof(int),
cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
int numcols = n / lowprime;
int numrows = primeEndInd - primeStartInd;
int threadx = min(numcols, THREADS_PER_BLOCK);
int thready = min(numrows, THREADS_PER_BLOCK / threadx);
int blockx = min(numcols / threadx, MAX_BLOCKS);
int blocky = min(numrows / thready, MAX_BLOCKS / blockx);
dim3 gridsize(blockx, blocky);
dim3 blocksize(threadx, thready);
clearMultiples<<<gridsize, blocksize>>>(isPrime, primeList,
primeStartInd, primeEndInd, n);
t = cudaDeviceSynchronize();
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
}
lb = ub;
ub *= 2;
if (lb >= bound) {
ub = n;
}
numBlocks = min(MAX_BLOCKS,
(ub - lb + THREADS_PER_BLOCK - 1) / THREADS_PER_BLOCK);
createCounts<<<numBlocks, THREADS_PER_BLOCK>>>(isPrime, addend, lb, ub);
t = cudaDeviceSynchronize();
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
sumCounts<<<THREADS_PER_BLOCK, 1>>>(isPrime, addend, lb, ub, numPrimes);
t = cudaDeviceSynchronize();
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
int primeCount;
t = cudaMemcpy(&primeCount, numPrimes, sizeof(int),
cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
assert(primeCount > 0);
primeStartInd = primeEndInd;
primeEndInd += primeCount;
condensePrimes<<<numBlocks, THREADS_PER_BLOCK>>>(isPrime, primeList, lb,
ub, primeStartInd, primeCount);
t = cudaDeviceSynchronize();
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
}
int finalprimes[primeEndInd];
t = cudaMemcpy(finalprimes, primeList, primeEndInd * sizeof(int),
cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaFree(isPrime);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaFree(addend);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaFree(numPrimes);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
t = cudaFree(primeList);
assert(t == cudaSuccess);
for (int i = 0; i < primeEndInd; i++) {
if (i % 16 == 0)
printf("\n");
else
printf(" ");
printf("%4d", finalprimes[i]);
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Answering some of your questions.
Fix your error checking as defined in the comments.
define what you mean by "concurrent reads". You're concerned about this but I'm not sure what you mean by it.
Is it necessary to call synchronize after every kernel call?
No, it isn't. If your code is not working correctly, synchronizing after every kernel call then doing proper error checking will tell you if any kernels are not launching correctly. Synchronization is generally not needed for relatively simple single-stream programs like this one. The cuda calls that need to synchronize like cudaMemcpy will do this automatically for you.
Do I need to synchronize after memcpy's as well?
No, cudaMemcpy is synchronous in nature (it will force all cuda calls in the same stream to complete before it begins, and it will not return control to the host thread until the copy is complete.) If you don't want the blocking characteristic (not returning control to the host thread until complete) then you can use the cudaMemcpyAsync version of the call. You would use streams to get around the behavior of forcing all previous cuda calls to complete.
Finally, how come when I set THREADS_PER_BLOCK to 512 it doesn't work?
Please define what you mean by "it doesn't work". I compiled your code with THREADS_PER_BLOCK of 512 and 256, and for an upper bound of 1000 it gave the same output in each case.