I'm a bit confused about compute units. I have an nvidia gtx 1650Ti graphics card. When I asked for max_compute_units, it returns 16 units, and max_work_group_size is 1024.
But when I executed the kernel:
int i = get_global_id (0);
result [i] = get_local_id (0);
I get the repeating local id range from 0 to 255. How does this relate to the max_compute_units returned by the graphics card? Is this an error in max_compute_units value and the gpu actually has more compute units than it indicates? Or does OpenCl get_local_id have its own distribution logic not tied to hardware? Thx!
OpenCL ompute units refer to streaming multiprocessors (SMs) on Nvidia GPUs or compute units (CUs) on AMD GPUs. Each SM contains 128 CUDA cores (Pascal and earlier) or 64 CUDA cores (Turing/Volta). For AMD, each CU contains 64 streaming multiprocessors. This refers to the hardware. The more SMs/CUs, the faster the GPU (within the same microarchitecture).
The work group size / local ID refer to how you group threads in software into so-called thread blocks. Thread blocks are useful for matrix multiplications for example, because within a thread block, communication between threads is possible via shared memory. Thread blocks can have different size (sort of an optimization parameter, either 32, 64, 128, 256, 512 or 1024 (max_work_group_size)). Based on your GPU, some intermediate values might also work. On the hardware (at least for Nvidia), the thread blocks are executed as so-called warps (groups of 32 threads) on the SMs. For Turing, one SM can compute 2 warps simultaneously. If you choose the thread block size 16, then each warp only computes 16 threads and the other 16 are idle, so you only get half the performance.
In your example with the local ID (this is the index in the thread block) betwqeen 0 and 255, your thread block size is 256. You define the thread block size in the kernel call as the "local range". max_work_group_size does not correlate with max_compute_units in any way; both are hardware / driver limitations.
Related
Is there a way to check the number of stream processors and cores utilized by an OpenCL kernel?
No. However you can make guesses based on your application: If the number of work items is much larger than the number of CUDA cores and the work group size is 32 or larger, all stream processors are used at the same time.
If the number of work items is the about the same or lower than the number of CUDA cores, you won't have full utilization.
If you set the work size to 16, only half of the CUDA cores will be used at any time, but the non-used half is blocked and cannot do other work. (So always set work group size to 32 or larger.)
Tools like nvidia-smi can tell you the time-averaged GPU usage. So if you run your kernel over and over without any delay in between, the usage indicates the average fraction of used CUDA cores at any time.
I'm writing a program called PerfectTIN (https://github.com/phma/perfecttin) which does lots of least-squares adjustments of a TIN to fit a point cloud. Each adjustment takes some contiguous group of triangles and adjusts the elevations of up to 8 points, which are corners of the triangles, to fit the dots in the triangles. I have it working on SMP. At the start of processing, it does only one adjustment at a time, so it splits the adjustment into tasks, each of which takes some dots, all of which are in the same triangle. Each thread takes a task from a queue and computes a small square matrix and a small column vector. When they're all ready, the adjustment routine adds up the matrices and the vectors and finishes the least squares computation.
I'd like to process tasks on the GPU as well as the CPU. The data needed for a task are
The three corners of the triangle (x,y,z)
The coordinates of the dots (x,y,z).
The output data are
A symmetric matrix with up to nine nonzero entries (since it's symmetric, I need only compute six numbers)
A column vector with the same number of rows.
The number of dots is a multiple of 1024, except for a few tasks which I can handle in the CPU (the total number of dots in a triangle can be any nonnegative integer). For a fairly large point cloud of 56 million dots, some tasks are larger than 131072 dots.
Here is part of the output of clinfo (if you need other parts, let me know):
Platform Name Clover
Number of devices 1
Device Name Radeon RX 590 Series (POLARIS10, DRM 3.33.0, 5.3.0-7625-generic, LLVM 9.0.0)
Device Vendor AMD
Device Vendor ID 0x1002
Device Version OpenCL 1.1 Mesa 19.2.8
Driver Version 19.2.8
Device OpenCL C Version OpenCL C 1.1
Device Type GPU
Device Profile FULL_PROFILE
Device Available Yes
Compiler Available Yes
Max compute units 36
Max clock frequency 1545MHz
Max work item dimensions 3
Max work item sizes 256x256x256
Max work group size 256
Preferred work group size multiple 64
Preferred / native vector sizes
char 16 / 16
short 8 / 8
int 4 / 4
long 2 / 2
half 8 / 8 (cl_khr_fp16)
float 4 / 4
double 2 / 2 (cl_khr_fp64)
Double-precision Floating-point support (cl_khr_fp64)
Denormals Yes
Infinity and NANs Yes
Round to nearest Yes
Round to zero Yes
Round to infinity Yes
IEEE754-2008 fused multiply-add Yes
Support is emulated in software No
If I understand right, if I put one dot in each core of the GPU, the total number of dots I can process at once is 36×256=9×1024=9216. Could I put four dots in each core, since a work group would then have 1024 dots? In this case I could process 36864 dots at once. How many dots should each core process? What if a task is bigger than the GPU can hold? What if several tasks (possibly from different triangles) fit in the GPU?
Of course I want this code to run on other GPUs than mine. I'm going to use OpenCL for portability. What different GPUs (description rather than name) am I going to encounter?
If I understand right, if I put one dot in each core of the GPU, the total number of dots I can process at once is 36×256=9×1024=9216.
Not quite. The total number of dots is not limited by the maximum work group size. The work group size is the number of GPU threads working synchronously in a group. Within a work group, you can share data via local memory, which can be useful to speed up certain calculations like matrix multiplications for example (cache tiling).
The idea of GPU parallelization is to split the prioblem up into as many independent parts as there are. In C++ something like
void example(float* data, const int N) {
for(int n=0; n<N; n++) {
data[n] += 1.0f;
}
}
in OpenCL becomes this
kernel void example(global float* data ) {
const int n = get_global_id(0) ;
data[n] += 1.0f;
}
where the global range of the kernel is set to N.
Each GPU thread should process only a single dot. The number of threads (global range) can and should be much larger than the number of GPU cores available. If you don't explicitly need local memory (all threads can work independent), you can set the local work group size to either 32, 64, 128 or 256 - it doesn't matter - but there might be some performance difference between these values. However the global range (total number of threads / points) must be a multiple of the work group size.
What if a task is bigger than the GPU can hold?
I assume you mean when your data set does not fit into video memory all at once. In this case you can do the computation in several batches, so exchange the GPU buffers using PCIe transfers. But that comes at a large performance penalty.
Of course I want this code to run on other GPUs than mine. I'm going to use OpenCL for portability. What different GPUs (description rather than name) am I going to encounter?
OpenCL is excellent for portability across devices and operating systems. Other than AMD GPUs and CPUs, you will encounter Nvidia GPUs, which only support OpenCL 1.2, and Intel GPUs and CPUs. If the graphics drivers are installed, your code will run on all of them without issues. Just be aware that the amount of video memory can be vastly different.
I'm trying tu understand why I could have more work-items in a CPU than a GPU in one dimension.
PLATFORM 0 DEVICE 0
== CPU ==
DEVICE_VENDOR: Intel
DEVICE NAME: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5257U CPU # 2.70GHz
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARALLAEL COMPUTE UNITS: 4
MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR THE GLOBAL/LOCAL WORK ITEM IDs: 3
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WORK-ITEMS IN EACH DIMENSION: (1024 1 1 )
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WORK-ITEMS IN A WORK-GROUP: 1024
PLATFORM 0 DEVICE 1
== GPU ==
DEVICE_VENDOR: Intel Inc.
DEVICE NAME: Intel(R) Iris(TM) Graphics 6100
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARALLAEL COMPUTE UNITS: 48
MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR THE GLOBAL/LOCAL WORK ITEM IDs: 3
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WORK-ITEMS IN EACH DIMENSION: (256 256 256 )
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WORK-ITEMS IN A WORK-GROUP: 256
The above is the result of my test code to print the information of the actual hardware that the OpenCL framework can use.
I really do not understand why the value of 1024 in the Maximum number of work-items in the CPU section. What is the real meaning of having that amount of work-items?
CPUs are more general purpose than GPUs. Their OpenCL implementation looks like serialized(but interleaved on instructions) for workgroups since each compute unit is a physical core to issue workgroups as a whole. Since they are serialized/interleaved, they rely on instructions-in-flight. CPUs have 100-200 instructions in-flight and if those instructions are AVX/SSE, then you can expect 800-1600 scalar data operations in-flight. This is well within range of 1024 workitems per workgroup, if OpenCL implementation is vectorized under the hood.
Since GPUs use massive thread-level-parallelism to fill pipelines to have more instructions-in-flight, they don't need as much ILP as CPUs so they can work fine with just 256 threads per workgroup and these threads run in parallel. Thread-level-parallelism fills pipelines easier than instruction-level-parallelism. Intel has 7-way, Nvidia 16-way, Amd 40-way thread-level-parallelism, for each pipeline. Each subslice of Iris6100 has (8 EUs) 64 pipelines. 64 pipelines x 7 means it can have multiple workgroups in-flight too, just like Nvidia and Amd GPUs. Probably having more threads/workitems per workgroup doesn't yield more performance for that iGPU and having more than 1024 threads per workgroup doesn't yield more performance for that CPU.
CPU also has 256kB L2 cache for compute unit which may be another limiting factor on maximum 1024 workitems per workgroup for saving states of each workitem efficiently.
As an image processing example:
You can divide and conquer an image by having 32x32 patches of it, on CPU(1024 threads). But this needs re-computation of 2D indices in kernel since CPU supports 1D kernel.
You can divide and conquer an image by having 16x16 patches of it, on iGPU (256 threads).
256x1 on iGPU
1024x1 on CPU
8x8x4 on iGPU
1x256x1 on iGPU
1x1x256 on iGPU
but not 1x1024x1 on CPU
They are the number of workitems per workgroup and generally they are a fraction of maximum allowed in-flight workitems per compute unit.
For this image processing example, up to several thousands of pixels can be in-flight per compute unit or up to 50k-100k pixels in-flight for a high-end GPU.
Having only 1 on other dimensions for CPU (imo) is originated from CPU's OpenCL implementation being an emulation. It doesn't have hardware to accelerate computation of thread-id values for other dimensions. But GPUs probably have this kind of support on hardware so that they can have more dimensions without decreasing performance as 1D kernel on CPU has to compute some modulos and divisions to emulate 2nd and 3rd dimensions which is a bottleneck for simple kernels.
If CPUs had emulated 2nd and 3rd dimensions too, there would be some modulos and divisions going on background with further slow-downs inside kernel if developers flatten a 3d kernel into 1d indices unknowingly. But GPUs may not even be computing modules under the hood. They could be just some lookup tables as fast as registers or some other fast accessed constants.
This is just a limitation per workgroup. You can launch many workgroups per kernel launch so it shouldn't affect the maximum image size to process in different devices like CPU or GPU or iGPU. Each image is processed by multiple workgroups for tiling from 1x1x1 to 32x32x1 or some other size.
I'm confused by this CL_DEVICE_MAX_COMPUTE_UNITS. For instance my Intel GPU on Mac, this number is 48. Does this mean the max number of parallel tasks run at the same time is 48 or the multiple of 48, maybe 96, 144...? (I know each compute unit is composed of 1 or more processing elements and each processing element is actually in charge of a "thread". What if these each of the 48 compute units is composed of more than 1 processing elements ). In other words, for my Mac, the "ideal" speedup, although impossible in reality, is 48 times faster than a CPU core (we assume the single "core" computation speed of CPU and GPU is the same), or the multiple of 48, maybe 96, 144...?
Summary: Your speedup is a little complicated, but your machine's (Intel GPU, probably GEN8 or GEN9) fp32 throughput 768 FLOPs per (GPU) clock and 1536 for fp16. Let's assume fp32, so something less than 768x (maybe a third of this depending on CPU speed). See below for the reasoning and some very important caveats.
A Quick Aside on CL_DEVICE_MAX_COMPUTE_UNITS:
Intel does something wonky when with CL_DEVICE_MAX_COMPUTE_UNITS with its GPU driver.
From the clGetDeviceInfo (OpenCL 2.0). CL_DEVICE_MAX_COMPUTE_UNITS says
The number of parallel compute units on the OpenCL device. A
work-group executes on a single compute unit. The minimum value is 1.
However, the Intel Graphics driver does not actually follow this definition and instead returns the number of EUs (Execution Units) --- An EU a grouping of the SIMD ALUs and slots for 7 different SIMD threads (registers and what not). Each SIMD thread represents 8, 16, or 32 workitems depending on what the compiler picks (we want higher, but register pressure can force us lower).
A workgroup is actually limited to a "Slice" (see the figure in section 5.5 "Slice Architecture"), which happens to be 24 EUs (in recent HW). Pick the GEN8 or GEN9 documents. Each slice has it's own SLM, barriers, and L3. Given that your apple book is reporting 48 EUs, I'd say that you have two slices.
Maximum Speedup:
Let's ignore this major annoyance and work with the EU number (and from those arch docs above). For "speedup" I'm comparing a single threaded FP32 calculation on the CPU. With good parallelization etc on the CPU, the speedup would be less, of course.
Each of the 48 EUs can issue two SIMD4 operations per clock in ideal circumstances. Assuming those are fused multiply-add's (so really two ops), that gives us:
48 EUs * 2 SIMD4 ops per EU * 2 (if the op is a fused multiply add)
= 192 SIMD4 ops per clock
= 768 FLOPs per clock for single precision floating point
So your ideal speedup is actually ~768. But there's a bunch of things that chip into this ideal number.
Setup and teardown time. Let's ignore this (assume the WL time dominates the runtime).
The GPU clock maxes out around a gigahertz while the CPU runs faster. Factor that ratio in. (crudely 1/3 maybe? 3Ghz on the CPU vs 1Ghz on the GPU).
If the computation is not heavily multiply-adds "mads", divide by 2 since I doubled above. Many important workloads are "mad"-dominated though.
The execution is mostly non-divergent. If a SIMD thread branches into an if-then-else, the entire SIMD thread (8,16,or 32 workitems) has to execute that code.
Register banking collisions delays can reduce EU ALU throughput. Typically the compiler does a great job avoiding this, but it can theoretically chew into your performance a bit (usually a few percent depending on register pressure).
Buffer address calculation can chew off a few percent too (EU must spend time doing integer compute to read and write addresses).
If one uses too much SLM or barriers, the GPU must leave some of the EU's idle so that there's enough SLM for each work item on the machine. (You can tweak your algorithm to fix this.)
We must keep the WL compute bound. If we blow out any cache in the data access hierarchy, we run into scenarios where no thread is ready to run on an EU and must stall. Assume we avoid this.
?. I'm probably forgetting other things that can go wrong.
We call the efficiency the percentage of theoretical perfect. So if our workload runs at ~530 FLOPs per clock, then we are 60% efficient of the theoretical 768. I've seen very carefully tuned workloads exceed 90% efficiency, but it definitely can take some work.
The ideal speedup you can get is the total number of processing elements which in your case corresponds to 48 * number of processing elements per compute unit. I do not know of a way to get the number of processing elements from OpenCL (that does not mean that it is not possible), however you can just google it for your GPU.
Up to my knowledge, a compute unit consists of one or multiple processing elements (for GPUs usually a lot), a register file, and some local memory. The threads of a compute unit are executed in a SIMD (single instruction multiple data) fashion. This means that the threads of a compute unit all execute the same operation but on different data.
Also, the speedup you get depends on how you execute a kernel function. Since a single work-group can not run on multiple compute units you need a sufficient number of work-groups in order to fully utilize all of the compute units. In addition, the work-group size should be a multiple of CL_KERNEL_PREFERRED_WORK_GROUP_SIZE_MULTIPLE.
Searching through the NVIDIA forums I found these questions, which are also of interest to me, but nobody had answered them in the last four days or so. Can you help?
Original Forum Post
Digging into OpenCL reading tutorials some things stayed unclear for me. Here is a collection of my questions regarding local and global work sizes.
Must the global_work_size be smaller than CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_ITEM_SIZES?
On my machine CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_ITEM_SIZES = 512, 512, 64.
Is CL_KERNEL_WORK_GROUP_SIZE the recommended work_group_size for the used kernel?
Or is this the only work_group_size the GPU allows?
On my machine CL_KERNEL_WORK_GROUP_SIZE = 512
Do I need to divide into work groups or can I have only one, but not specifying local_work_size?
To what do I have to pay attention, when I only have one work group?
What does CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_GROUP_SIZE mean?
On my machine CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_GROUP_SIZE = 512, 512, 64
Does this mean, I can have one work group which is as large as the CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_ITEM_SIZES?
Has global_work_size to be a divisor of CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_ITEM_SIZES?
In my code global_work_size = 20.
In general you can choose global_work_size as big as you want, while local_work_size is constraint by the underlying device/hardware, so all query results will tell you the possible dimensions for local_work_size instead of the global_work_size. the only constraint for the global_work_size is that it must be a multiple of the local_work_size (for each dimension).
The work group sizes specify the sizes of the workgroups so if CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_ITEM_SIZES is 512, 512, 64 that means your local_work_size can't be bigger then 512 for the x and y dimension and 64 for the z dimension.
However there is also a constraint on the local group size depending on the kernel. This is expressed through CL_KERNEL_WORK_GROUP_SIZE. Your cumulative workgoupsize (as in the product of all dimensions, e.g. 256 if you have a localsize of 16, 16, 1) must not be greater then that number. This is due to the limited hardware resources to be divided between the threads (from your query results I assume you are programming on a NVIDIA GPU, so the amount of local memory and registers used by a thread will limit the number of threads which can be executed in parallel).
CL_DEVICE_MAX_WORK_GROUP_SIZE defines the maximum size of a work group in the same manner as CL_KERNEL_WORK_GROUP_SIZE, but specific to the device instead the kernel (and it should be a a scalar value aka 512).
You can choose not to specify local_work_group_size, in which case the OpenCL implementation will choose a local work group size for you (so its not a guarantee that it uses only one workgroup). However it's generally not advisiable, since you don't know how your work is divided into workgroups and furthermore it's not guaranteed that the workgroupsize chosen will be optimal.
However, you should note that using only one workgroup is generally not a good idea performancewise (and why use OpenCL if performance is not a concern). In general a workgroup has to execute on one compute unit, while most devices will have more then one (modern CPUs have 2 or more, one for each core, while modern GPUs can have 20 or more). Furthermore even the one Compute Unit on which your workgroup executes might not be fully used, since several workgroup can execute on one compute unit in an SMT style. To use NVIDIA GPUs optimally you need 768/1024/1536 threads (depending on the generation, meaning G80/GT200/GF100) executing on one compute unit, and while I don't know the numbers for amd right now, they are in the same magnitude, so it's good to have more then one workgroup. Furthermore, for GPUs, it's typically advisable to have workgroups which at least 64 threads (and a number of threads divisible by 32/64 (nvidia/amd) per workgroup), because otherwise you will again have reduced performance (32/64 is the minimum granuaty for execution on gpus, so if you have less items in a workgroup, it will still execute as 32/64 threads, but discard the results from unused threads).