C OpenMP parallel bubble sort - c

Question

I have an implementation of parallel bubble sort algorithm(Odd-Even transposition sort) in C, using OpenMP. However, after I tested it it's slower than the serial version(by about 10%) although I have a 4 cores processor ( 2 real x 2 because of Intel hyperthreading). I have checked to see if the cores are actually used and I can see them at 100% each when running the program. Therefore I think I did a mistake in the implementation the algorithm.
I am using linux with kernel 2.6.38-8-generic.
This is how I compile:
gcc -o bubble-sort bubble-sort.c -Wall -fopenmp or
gcc -o bubble-sort bubble-sort.c -Wall -fopenmp for the serial version
This is how i run:
./bubble-sort < in_10000 > out_10000
#include <omp.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
int i, n, tmp, *x, changes;
int chunk;
scanf("%d ", &n);
chunk = n / 4;
x = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
scanf("%d ", &x[i]);
changes = 1;
int nr = 0;
while(changes)
{
#pragma omp parallel private(tmp)
{
nr++;
changes = 0;
#pragma omp for \
reduction(+:changes)
for(i = 0; i < n - 1; i = i + 2)
{
if(x[i] > x[i+1] )
{
tmp = x[i];
x[i] = x[i+1];
x[i+1] = tmp;
++changes;
}
}
#pragma omp for \
reduction(+:changes)
for(i = 1; i < n - 1; i = i + 2)
{
if( x[i] > x[i+1] )
{
tmp = x[i];
x[i] = x[i+1];
x[i+1] = tmp;
++changes;
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
Later edit:
It seems to work well now after I made the changes you suggested. It also scales pretty good(I tested on 8 physical cores too -> took 21s for a set of 150k numbers which is far less than on one core). However if I set the OMP_SCHEDULE environment variable myself the performance decreases...

Answer 1

You should profile it and check where threads spend time.
One possible reason is that parallel regions are constantly created and destroyed; depending on OpenMP implementation, it could lead to re-creation of the thread pool, though good implementations should probably handle this case.
Some small things to shave off:
- ok seems completely unnecessary, you can just change the loop exit condition to i<n-1;
- explicit barrier is unnecessary - first, you put it out of parallel regions so it makes no sense; and second, OpenMP parallel regions and loops have implicit barriers at the end;
- combine at least the two consequent parallel regions inside the while loop:
#pragma omp parallel private(tmp)
{
#pragma omp for bla-bla
for (i=0; i<n-1; i+=2 ) {...}
#pragma omp for bla-bla
for (i=1; i<n-1; i+=2 ) {...}
}