So I am implementing a Kmeans clustering algorithm with OpenCL that uses channels: a feature from Intel's FPGA SDK for OpenCL.
To keep it succinct, this means I have two kernels that have to be enqueued on different command queues so they run simultaneously. I want to copy the cl_mem buffer from one kernel to the other every iteration (it's for the 4 clusters, so on the small side), part of which requires me to call clEnqueueCopyBuffer. This requires passing the function a command queue, but I don't know if it wants the queue of the buffer being copied or the queue of the buffer being copied to.
This is all the OpenCL Specification says for the command_queue parameter:
The command-queue in which the copy command will be queued. The OpenCL context associated with command_queue, src_buffer, and dst_buffer must be the same.
I can confirm these kernels are in fact in the same context.
You could use either command queue but you need to get an event from the copy operation to pass to the other kernel enqueue on the other command queue. Otherwise it might start before the copy finishes.
Related
I have an OpenCL buffer created with the read and write flag. Can I access the same memory address simultaneously? say, calling enqueueReadBuffer and a kernel that doesn't modify the contents out-of-order without waitlists, or two calls to kernels that only read from the buffer.
Yes, you can do so. Create 2 queues, then call clEnqueieReadBuffer and clEnqueueNDRangeKernel on the different queue.
It ultimately depends on weather the device and driver supports executing different queues at the same time. Most GPUs can while embedded devices may or may not.
I'm new to OpenCL programming. In one of my OpenCL applications, I use clWaitForEvents after launching every kernel.
Case 1:
time_start();
cl_event event;
cl_int status = clEnqueueNDRangeKernel(queue, ..., &event);
clWaitForEvents(1, &event);
time_end();
Time taken : 250 ms (with clWaitForEvents)
If I remove clWaitForEvents(), my kernel runs faster with the same output.
Case 2:
time_start();
cl_event event;
cl_int status = clEnqueueNDRangeKernel(queue, ..., &event);
time_end();
Time taken: 220 ms (without clWaitForEvents)
I've to launch 10 different kernels sequentially. Every kernel is dependent on the output of the previous kernel. Using clWaitForEvent after every kernel increases my execution time by few 100 ms.
Can the outputs go wrong if I do not use clWaitForEvents? I would like to understand what might possibly go wrong if I do not use clWaitForEvents or clFinish.
Any pointers are appreciated.
Hopefully a slightly less complicated answer:
I've to launch 10 different kernels sequentially. Every kernel is dependent on the output of the previous kernel.
If you don't explicitly set CL_QUEUE_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXEC_MODE_ENABLE property in clCreateCommandQueue() call (= the usual case), it will be an in-order queue. You don't need to synchronize commands in them (actually you shouldn't, as you see it can considerably slow down execution). See the docs:
If the CL_QUEUE_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXEC_MODE_ENABLE property of a command-queue is not set, the commands enqueued to a command-queue execute in order. For example, if an application calls clEnqueueNDRangeKernel to execute kernel A followed by a clEnqueueNDRangeKernel to execute kernel B, the application can assume that kernel A finishes first and then kernel B is executed. If the memory objects output by kernel A are inputs to kernel B then kernel B will see the correct data in memory objects produced by execution of kernel A.
I would like to understand what might possibly go wrong if I do not use clWaitForEvents or clFinish.
If you're doing simple stuff on a single in-order queue, you don't need clWaitForEvents() at all. It's mostly useful if you want to wait for multiple events from multiple queues, or you're using out-of-order queues, or you want to enqueue 20 commands but wait for the 4th, or something similar.
For a single in-order queue, after clFinish() returns all commands will be completed and any&all events will have their status updated to complete or failed. So in the simplest case you don't need to deal with events at all, just enqueue everything you need (check the enqueues for errors though) and call clFinish().
Note that if you don't use any form of wait/flush (WaitForEvents / Finish / a blocking command), the implementation may take as much time as it wants to actually push those commands to a device. IOW you must either 1) use WaitForEvents or Finish, or 2) enqueue a blocking command (read/write/map/unmap) as the last command.
In-order-queue implicitly waits for each command completion in the order they are enqueued but only on device-side. This means host can't know what happened.
Out-of-order-queue does not guarantee any command order in anywhere and can have issues.
'Wait-for-event' waits on host side for an event of a command.
'Finish' waits on host side until all commands are complete.
'Non blocking buffer read/write' does not wait on host side.
'Blocking buffer read/write' waits on host side but does not wait for other commands.
Recommended solutions:
Inter-command sync (for using output of a command as input of next command)
in-order-queue.
or passing event of a command to another (if its an out-of-order queue)
Inter-queue(or out-of-order queue) sync (for overlapping buffer copies and kernel executions)
pass events from command(s) to another command
Device - host sync (for getting latest data to RAM(or getting first data from RAM) or pausing host)
enable blocking option on buffer commands
or add a clFinish
or use clWaitForEvent
Be informed when a command is complete(for reasons like benchmarking)
use event callback
or constantly query event state(CPU/pci-e usage increases)
Enqueueing 1 non-blocking buffer write + 1000 x kernels + 1 blocking buffer read on an in-order-queue can successfully execute a chain of 1000 kernels on initial data and get latest results on host side.
Suppose you create two threads and making both of them entering a loop there both of them start the same kernel which uses same opencl memory object (Buffer in cl.hpp in my case). Will it work properly? Do opencl allow to run in the same time different kernels with the same memory object?
(I am using opencl C++ wrapper cl.hpp and beignet Intel open source library.)
If both threads are using the same in-order command queue, it will work just fine; it just becomes a race as to which thread enqueues their work first. From the OpenCL runtime point of view, it's just commands in a queue.
OpenCL 1.1 (and newer) is threadsafe except for clSetKernelArg and clEnqueueNDRangeKernel for a given kernel; you'll need to lock around that.
If however your threads are using two different command queues then you shouldn't be using the same memory object without then using OpenCL Event objects to synchronize. Unless it is read-only; that should be fine.
Read operation on same OpenCL memory objects, by concurrent kernels, wouldn't cause any functionality issue. In case of write operation, it sure will cause functionality issues.
What is the objective of running multiple kernels concurrently? Please check this answer to similar question.
Can queued kernels continue to execute while an OpenCL clEnqueueReadBuffer operation is occurring?
In other words, is clEnqueueReadBuffer a blocking operation on the device?
From a host API point of view, clEnqueueReadBuffer can be blocking or not, depending on if you set the blocking_read parameter to CL_TRUE or CL_FALSE.
If you set it to not block, then the read just gets queued and you should use an event (or subsequent blocking call) to determine when it has finished (i.e., before you access the memory that you are reading to).
If you set it to block, the call won't return until the read is done. The memory being read to will be correct. Also (and answering your actual question) any operations you queued prior to the clEnqueueReadBuffer will all have to finish first before the read starts (see exception note below).
All clEnqueue* API calls are asynchronous, but some have "blocking" parameters you can set. Using it is the equivalent to using a non-blocking version and then calling clFinish instead. The command queue will be flushed to the device and your host thread won't continue until the work has finished. Of course, it is hard to keep the GPU always busy doing it this way, since now it doesn't have any work, but if you queue up new work fast enough you can still keep it reasonably busy.
This all assumes a single, in-order command queue. If your command queue is out-of-order and your device supports out-of-order queues then enqueued items can execute in any order that doesn't violate the event_wait_list parameters you provided. Likewise, you can have multiple command queues, which can again be executed in any order that doesn't violate the event_wait_list parameters you provided. Typically, they are used to overlap memory transfers and compute, and to keep multiple compute units busy. Out-of-order command queues and multiple command queues are both advanced OpenCL concepts and shouldn't be attempted until you fully understand and have experience with in-order command queues.
Clarification added later after DarkZeros pointed out the "on the device" part of the OP's question: My answer was from the host thread API point of view. On the device, with an in-order command queue all downstream commands are blocked by the current command. With an out-of-order queue they are only blocked by the event_wait_list. However, out-of-order command queues are not well supported in today's drivers. With multiple command queues, in theory commands are only blocked by prior commands (if in-order) and the event_wait_list. In reality, there are sometimes special vendor rules that prevent the free flowing of potentially non-blocked commands that you might like. This is often because the multiple OpenCL command queues get transferred to device-side memory and compute queues, and get executed in-order there. So depending on the order that you add commands to your multiple command queues, they might get interleaved in such a way that they block in sub-optimal ways. The best solution I'm aware of is to either be careful about the order you enqueue (based on knowledge of this implementation detail), or use one queue for memory and one for compute, which matches the device-side queueing.
If overlap of memory and compute is your goal, both AMD and NVIDIA both provide examples of how to overlap memory and compute operations, and for GPUs that support multiple compute operations, how to do that too. NVIDIA examples are hard to get ahold of but they are out there (from CUDA 4 days).
when I use multiple kernel in opencl such that result of first kernel (K1) execution is input to second kernel (K2) execution,so two questions are:
The event should be different for each kernel or should be same for
each kernel?
The command queue should be different for each kernel or should be
same for each kernel?
Thanks.
You need a single command queue (assuming the kernels are executed on the same device).
Unless your command queue is created with CL_QUEUE_OUT_OF_ORDER_EXEC_MODE_ENABLE, you don't need to create events in the scenario you describe: kernels are executed in the order they are enqueued.
For an out-of-order command queue, you should get an event from the first clEnqueueNDRangeKernel, and pass it as dependency to the second one. Remember to release the events with clReleaseEvent.