I am very new to OpenCL and am going through the Altera OpenCL examples.
In their matrix multiplication example, they have used the concept of blocks, where dimensions of the input matrices are multiple of block size. Here's the code:
void matrixMult( // Input and output matrices
__global float *restrict C,
__global float *A,
__global float *B,
// Widths of matrices.
int A_width, int B_width)
{
// Local storage for a block of input matrices A and B
__local float A_local[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
__local float B_local[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
// Block index
int block_x = get_group_id(0);
int block_y = get_group_id(1);
// Local ID index (offset within a block)
int local_x = get_local_id(0);
int local_y = get_local_id(1);
// Compute loop bounds
int a_start = A_width * BLOCK_SIZE * block_y;
int a_end = a_start + A_width - 1;
int b_start = BLOCK_SIZE * block_x;
float running_sum = 0.0f;
for (int a = a_start, b = b_start; a <= a_end; a += BLOCK_SIZE, b += (BLOCK_SIZE * B_width))
{
A_local[local_y][local_x] = A[a + A_width * local_y + local_x];
B_local[local_x][local_y] = B[b + B_width * local_y + local_x];
#pragma unroll
for (int k = 0; k < BLOCK_SIZE; ++k)
{
running_sum += A_local[local_y][k] * B_local[local_x][k];
}
}
// Store result in matrix C
C[get_global_id(1) * get_global_size(0) + get_global_id(0)] = running_sum;
}
Assume block size is 2, then: block_x and block_y are both 0; and local_x and local_y are both 0.
Then A_local[0][0] would be A[0] and B_local[0][0] would be B[0].
Sizes of A_local and B_local are 4 elements each.
In that case, how would A_local and B_local access other elements of the block in that iteration?
Also would separate threads/cores be assigned for each local_x and local_y?
There is definitely a barrier missing in your code sample. The outer for loop as you have it will only produce correct results if all work items are executing instructions in lockstep fashion, thus guaranteeing the local memory is populated before the for k loop.
Maybe this is the case for Altera and other FPGAs, but this is not correct for CPUs and GPUs.
You should add barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE); if you are getting unexpected results, or want to be compatible with other type of hardware.
float running_sum = 0.0f;
for (int a = a_start, b = b_start; a <= a_end; a += BLOCK_SIZE, b += (BLOCK_SIZE * B_width))
{
A_local[local_y][local_x] = A[a + A_width * local_y + local_x];
B_local[local_x][local_y] = B[b + B_width * local_y + local_x];
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
#pragma unroll
for (int k = 0; k < BLOCK_SIZE; ++k)
{
running_sum += A_local[local_y][k] * B_local[local_x][k];
}
}
A_local and B_local are both shared by all work items of the work group, so all their elements are loaded in parallel (by all work items of the work group) at each step of the encompassing for loop.
Then each work item uses some of the loaded values (not necessarily the values the work item loaded itself) to do its share of the computation.
And finally, the work item stores its individual result into the global output matrix.
It is a classical tiled implementation of a matrix-matrix multiplication. However, I'm really surprised not to see any sort of call to a memory synchronisation function, such as work_group_barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE) between the load of A_local and B_local and their use in the k loop... But I might very well have overlooked something here.
Related
I'm trying to implement Hough transform for circles in OpenCL, but i've encountered really weird problem. Every time i run the Hough kernel, i end up with slightly different accumulator, even though parameters are the same and accumulator is always a freshly zero'ed table (ex. http://imgur.com/a/VcIw1). My kernel code is as below:
#define BLOCK_LEN 256
__kernel void HoughCirclesKernel(
__global int* A,
__global int* imgData,
__global int* _width,
__global int* _height,
__global int* r
)
{
__local int imgBuff[BLOCK_LEN];
int localThreadIndex = get_local_id(0); //threadIdx.x
int globalThreadIndex = get_local_id(0) + get_group_id(0) * BLOCK_LEN; //threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * Block_Len
int width = *_width; int height = *_height;
int radius = *r;
A[globalThreadIndex] = 0;
barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE);
if(globalThreadIndex < width*height)
{
imgBuff[localThreadIndex] = imgData[globalThreadIndex];
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
if(imgBuff[localThreadIndex] > 0)
{
float s1, c1;
for(int i = 0; i<180; i++)
{
s1 = sincos(i, &c1);
int centerX = globalThreadIndex % width + radius * c1;
int centerY = ((globalThreadIndex - centerX) / height) + radius * s1;
if(centerX < width && centerY < height)
atomic_inc(A + centerX + centerY * width);
}
}
}
barrier(CLK_GLOBAL_MEM_FENCE);
}
Could this be the fault of how I am incrementing the accumulator?
if(globalThreadIndex < width*height)
{
imgBuff[localThreadIndex] = imgData[globalThreadIndex];
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
...
}
this is undefined behaviour since there is a barrier inside a branch.
All streaming units in a compute unit must enter same memory fence.
Try this:
if(globalThreadIndex < width*height)
{
imgBuff[localThreadIndex] = imgData[globalThreadIndex];
...
}
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
Alse there could be another issue if you are using multiple devices:
get_local_id(0) + get_group_id(0)
here get_group_id(0) is getting group id per device and it starts from 0 for all devices just as get_global_id starts zero too; so you should add proper offsets in the "ndrange" instruction when using multiple devices. Even though different devices can support same floatig point accuracy requirements, one of them may give better accuracy than other and can give slightly different results. If it is single device, then you should try lowering gpu frequencies as it may have defects or side effects of an overclock.
I have managed to solve my problem by finding and correcting three issues.
First of all the kernel code, the line:
int centerY = ((globalThreadIndex - centerX) / height) + radius * s1;
should be:
int centerY = (globalThreadIndex / width) + radius * s1;
The main change here was dividing by width, not height. This caused inaccuracy problems.
if(centerX < width && centerY < height)
The above condition was changed to:
if(x < width && x >= 0)
if(y < height && y >=0)
As for the accumulator problem, first I will post the code I used to create clBuffer (I am using OpenCL.net library for C#):
int[] a = new int[width*height]; //image size
ErrorCode error;
Mem cl_accumulator = (Mem)Cl.CreateBuffer(cl_context, MemFlags.ReadWrite, (IntPtr)(a.Length * sizeof(int)), out error);
CheckErr(error, "Cl.CreateBuffer");
The fix here was simple and pretty much self-explainatory:
int[] a = Enumerable.Repeat(0, width * height).ToArray();
ErrorCode error;
GCHandle accHandle = GCHandle.Alloc(a, GCHandleType.Pinned);
IntPtr accPtr = accHandle.AddrOfPinnedObject();
Mem cl_accumulator = (Mem)Cl.CreateBuffer(cl_context, MemFlags.ReadWrite | MemFlags.CopyHostPtr, (IntPtr)(a.Length * sizeof(int)), accPtr, out error);
CheckErr(error, "Cl.CreateBuffer");
I filled the accumulator table with zeros and then copied it to device buffer each time I executed the kernel.
The above errors caused the accumulator to look different and bit malformed each time I executed the kernel.
I adapted the attached kernel from one of the NVIDIA OpenCL examples and compared performance to clblasSgemm, and found that they perform equally fast (at least on my setup). I am launching it with a {16, 16} local work size.
Now, assume matrices A and B are both uchar, and C accordingly uint. Is there any way to optimize the multiplication? Simply replacing the types degraded performance. I tried hand-vectorizing with uchar4 and uchar16, but that made it slower.
Any suggestions welcome! (I am new to GPU programming and OpenCL)
/*
* This software contains source code provided by NVIDIA Corporation.
*/
#define BLOCK_SIZE 16
__kernel void mat_mul(const __global float* A, const __global float* B,
__global float* C,
const int A_cols, const int B_cols) {
// Block index
const int bx = get_group_id(0);
const int by = get_group_id(1);
// Thread index
const int tx = get_local_id(0);
const int ty = get_local_id(1);
// Index of the first sub-matrix of A processed by the block
const int a0 = A_cols * BLOCK_SIZE * by;
// Index of the last sub-matrix of A processed by the block
const int a1 = a0 + A_cols - 1;
const int a_step = BLOCK_SIZE;
// Index of the first sub-matrix of B processed by the block
const int b0 = BLOCK_SIZE * bx;
// Step size used to iterate through the sub-matrices of B
const int b_step = BLOCK_SIZE * B_cols;
// Csub is used to store the element of the block sub-matrix
// that is computed by the thread
float Csub = 0;
__local float As[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
__local float Bs[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
// Loop over all the sub-matrices of A and B required to compute the
// block sub-matrix
for (int a=a0, b=b0; a<=a1; a+=a_step, b+=b_step) {
// Load the matrices from device memory to shared memory;
// each thread loads one element of each matrix
As[ty][tx] = A[a + A_cols * ty + tx];
Bs[ty][tx] = B[b + B_cols * ty + tx];
// Synchronize to make sure the matrices are loaded
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
// Multiply the two matrices together;
// each thread computes one element of the block sub-matrix
#pragma unroll
for (int k=0; k<BLOCK_SIZE; ++k) {
Csub += As[ty][k] * Bs[k][tx];
}
// Synchronize to make sure that the preceding computation is done
// before loading two new sub-matrices of A and B in the next
// iteration
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
}
// Write the block sub-matrix to device memory;
// each thread writes one element
C[get_global_id(1) * get_global_size(0) + get_global_id(0)] = Csub;
}
There is very simple way to measure if your kernel is good. Calculate it's OPS & bandwidth (how many data in form of matrix are you processing per second). Then compare it to theoretical limits. You will get factor, limiting performance. Usually, it's load-store operations.
I am new to Open-cl and I am trying to write kernel code for the following matrix operation:
A is a 2X2 matrix:
A = [1 2] ----> row1
[3 4] ----->row2
I need to compute:
1) s1 = transpose(row1) X row1
2) s1 = transpose(row2) X row2
3) Sum = s1+s2
I wrote kernel code for row level (i.e I can do transpose(row1) X row1 )
-this serves the purpose for first row only
How do I use parallelism to compute this for each row and find the final sum within kernel function ?
private static String programSource1 =
"__kernel"+
" void matrixMul(__global float* A, __global float* C, int rowLength)"+
"{"+
"int row = get_global_id(1);"+
"int col = get_global_id(0);"+
"C[row*rowLength+col] = A[col] * A[row];"+
"}";
#define MAX_ROW_LENGTH 2 // or more
__kernel void matrixMul(__global float* A, __global float* C,
int rowLength)
{
__local float buffer[MAX_ROW_LENGTH * MAX_ROW_LENGTH];
__local float s1[MAX_ROW_LENGTH * MAX_ROW_LENGTH];
int col = get_global_id(0);
int row = get_global_id(1);
int rows = get_global_size(1);
// read the matrix from global to local memory
buffer[row * rowLength + col] = A[row * rowLength + col];
s1[row * rowLength + col] = 0.0f;
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
for (int i = 0; i < rows; ++i)
{
s1[row * rowLength + col] +=
buffer[i * rowLength + col] * buffer[i * rowLength + row];
}
C[row * rowLength + col] = s1[row*rowLength+col];
}
Here is some kernel code that does what you want for small matrices. The kernel uses local memory to reduce global memory access. For such small problems (2x2 matrix) this want achiev anything but if you are computing greater matrices this can speedup the thing a little bit. However, this is a short example and not optimized.Iit comes with some limitations:
this code only supports local workgroup sizes equal to the global
workgroup size (no chunks)
if your matrices get to big the shared memory will limit the utilization of your GPU and
if your matrices get realy big their will not be enough shared memory
If you don't want local memory remove replace the calls for buffer within the for loop by A and write directly to C instead of s1.
I am studying an OpenCL code wich simulates the N-body problem from the following tutorial :
http://www.browndeertechnology.com/docs/BDT_OpenCL_Tutorial_NBody-rev3.html
My main issue relies on the kernel code :
for(int jb=0; jb < nb; jb++) { /* Foreach block ... */
19 pblock[ti] = pos_old[jb*nt+ti]; /* Cache ONE particle position */
20 barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE); /* Wait for others in the work-group */
21 for(int j=0; j<nt; j++) { /* For ALL cached particle positions ... */
22 float4 p2 = pblock[j]; /* Read a cached particle position */
23 float4 d = p2 - p;
24 float invr = rsqrt(d.x*d.x + d.y*d.y + d.z*d.z + eps);
25 float f = p2.w*invr*invr*invr;
26 a += f*d; /* Accumulate acceleration */
27 }
28 barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE); /* Wait for others in work-group */
29 }
I don't understand what exactly happens at the execution : the kernel code is executed n times where n is the number of work-items (which is also the number of threads) but in the above part of code, we use the local memory for each work-group (there are nb work-groups it seems)
So, at the execution, up to the first "barrier", do I fill locally the pblock array with the global values of pos_old ?
Always up to the first barrier, for another work-group, the pblock array will have contain the same values as the arrays of the others work-groups, since jb=0 before the barrier ?
It seems that's a way to share these arrays by all the work-groups but this is not totally clear for me.
Any help is welcome.
Can you post the entire kernel code please? I have to make assumptions about the params and private variables.
It looks like there are nt number of work items in the group, and ti represents the current work item. When the loop executes, each item in the group will copy only single element. Usually this copy is from a global data source. The first barrier forces the work item to wait until the other items have made their copy. This is necessary because every work item in the group needs to read the data copied from every other work item. The values should not be the same, because ti should be different for each work item. (jb*nt would still equal zero for the first loop though)
Here is the entire kernel code :
__kernel
void
nbody_sim(
__global float4* pos ,
__global float4* vel,
int numBodies,
float deltaTime,
float epsSqr,
__local float4* localPos,
__global float4* newPosition,
__global float4* newVelocity)
{
unsigned int tid = get_local_id(0);
unsigned int gid = get_global_id(0);
unsigned int localSize = get_local_size(0);
// Number of tiles we need to iterate
unsigned int numTiles = numBodies / localSize;
// position of this work-item
float4 myPos = pos[gid];
float4 acc = (float4)(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
for(int i = 0; i < numTiles; ++i)
{
// load one tile into local memory
int idx = i * localSize + tid;
localPos[tid] = pos[idx];
// Synchronize to make sure data is available for processing
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
// calculate acceleration effect due to each body
// a[i->j] = m[j] * r[i->j] / (r^2 + epsSqr)^(3/2)
for(int j = 0; j < localSize; ++j)
{
// Calculate acceleartion caused by particle j on particle i
float4 r = localPos[j] - myPos;
float distSqr = r.x * r.x + r.y * r.y + r.z * r.z;
float invDist = 1.0f / sqrt(distSqr + epsSqr);
float invDistCube = invDist * invDist * invDist;
float s = localPos[j].w * invDistCube;
// accumulate effect of all particles
acc += s * r;
}
// Synchronize so that next tile can be loaded
barrier(CLK_LOCAL_MEM_FENCE);
}
float4 oldVel = vel[gid];
// updated position and velocity
float4 newPos = myPos + oldVel * deltaTime + acc * 0.5f * deltaTime * deltaTime;
newPos.w = myPos.w;
float4 newVel = oldVel + acc * deltaTime;
// write to global memory
newPosition[gid] = newPos;
newVelocity[gid] = newVel;
}
There are "numTiles" work-groups with "localSize" work-items for each work-group.
"gid" is the global index and "tid" is the local index.
Let's start at the first iteration of the loop "for(int i = 0; i < numTiles; ++i)" with "i=0":
If I take for example :
numTiles = 4, localSize = 25 and numBodies = 100 = number of work-items.
Then, at the execution, if I have gid = 80, then tid = 5, idx = 5 and the first assignement will be : localPos[5] = pos[5]
Now, I take gid = 5, then tid = 5 and idx = 5, I will have the same assignement with : localPos[5] = pos[5]
So, from what I understand, in the first iteration and after the first "barrier", each work-items contains the same Local array "localPos", i.e the sub-array of the first global block, which is "pos[0:24]".
Is this a good explanation of what happens ?
What are the best practices to consider when implementing an error function defined as
using an OpenCL kernel?
A, B and C are 3D float arrays and \delta is the Kronecker delta.
Typical values for (N, M) = (2, 7) or (N, M) = (3, 23).
The naive implementation (given below) is by several orders of magnitude slower than the CPU version.
Thanks,
T.
__kernel void cl_bilinear_alg(
__global float * A,
__global float * B,
__global float * C,
__global const int M,
__global const int N,
__global float * R)
{
int index = get_global_id(0);
int N2 = N * N;
int mat_offset = index * N2 * M;
float s1, s2, err = 0.0f;
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < N; ++j)
{
for (int k = 0; k < N; ++k)
{
for (int l = 0; l < N; ++l)
{
for (int m = 0; m < N; ++m)
{
for (int n = 0; n < N; ++n)
{
s1 = (n == i) * (j == k) * (l == m);
s2 = 0;
for (int r = 0; r < M; ++r)
{
s2 += A[mat_offset + r * N2 + i * N + j] *
B[mat_offset + r * N2 + k * N + l] *
C[mat_offset + r * N2 + m * N + n];
}
err += (s2 - s1) * (s2 - s1);
}
}
}
}
}
}
R[index] = err;
}
UPDATE
The primary target is a Geforce GTX 570, though this could change in the future.
UPDATE2
After vectorizing the code, moving bits to local memory, unrolling some loops and passing precomputed Kronecker products explicitly to the kernel the code looks as follows:
__kernel void cl_bilinear_alg(__global const float * A,
__global const float * B,
__global const float * C,
__global const int N,
__global const int M,
__global const float * kron,
__global float * R)
{
__private int index = get_global_id(0);
__private int cM = ceil(M / 4.0f);
__private int N2 = N*N;
__private int N4 = N2*N2;
__private int mat_offset = index * N2 * M;
__private float s1, s2, err = 0;
__private float4 vzero = (float4) (0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
__local float4 va[54], vb[54], vc[54];
for (int ij = 0, k = 0; ij < N2; ++ij)
{
int r = 0;
for (; r < M / 4; r += 4, ++k)
{
int idx0 = mat_offset + N2 * r + ij;
int idx1 = mat_offset + N2 * (r + 1) + ij;
int idx2 = mat_offset + N2 * (r + 2) + ij;
int idx3 = mat_offset + N2 * (r + 3) + ij;
va[k] = (float4) (A[idx0], A[idx1], A[idx2], A[idx3]);
vb[k] = (float4) (B[idx0], B[idx1], B[idx2], B[idx3]);
vc[k] = (float4) (C[idx0], C[idx1], C[idx2], C[idx3]);
}
if (M % 4)
{
float buffa[4] = {0}, buffb[4] = {0}, buffc[4] = {0};
for (; r < M; ++r)
{
int idx = mat_offset + N2 * r + ij;
buffa[r % 4] = A[idx];
buffb[r % 4] = B[idx];
buffc[r % 4] = C[idx];
}
va[k] = vload4(0, buffa);
vb[k] = vload4(0, buffb);
vc[k++] = vload4(0, buffc);
}
}
for (int ij = 0; ij < N2; ++ij)
{
for (int kl = 0; kl < N2; ++kl)
{
for (int mn = 0; mn < N2; ++mn)
{
s1 = kron[ij * N4 + kl * N2 + mn];
s2 = 0;
for (int r = 0; r < cM; ++r)
s2 += dot(va[cM * ij + r], mad(vb[cM * kl + r], vc[cM * mn + r], vzero));
//the most expensive line
err += (s2 - s1) * (s2 - s1);
}
}
}
R[index] = err;
}
By applying these changes a 4x speed increase was observed compared to the naive implementation. Furthermore, it was revealed that the most expensive line of all is the error update, i.e.
err += (s2 - s1) * (s2 - s1);
Any suggestions?
Typically you'd want to break some of those loops up... a lot...
- the outer loops become split over multiple workgroups, which run on their own compute unit (there are around 16 compute units per GPU, not many)
- the next few loops would be split over different threads within each workgroup
If you try to run all the calculations all at the same time, they will all try to load the data into memory at the same time, and this will simply thrash horribly. GPUs have very limited memory. Sure, the global memory sounds large enough, several gigabytes, but the global GPU memory is slow. You want to get the data into the local memory, which is per compute unit, and is of the order of 32-64KB, not much more than that.
You'd typically want to somehow divide your task into very small tasks, and do the following, for each workgroup:
load a chunk of memory from global memory into local memory
the whole workgroup warp of threads can participate in doing the copy, using coallesced access
do work on this memory, like doing some sums, and so on
write the results back to global memory
then, can either iterate a bit, or simply exit, and leave other workgroups to handle other bits of the work
On the CPU, the mathematical operations tend to be a major bottleneck, but on the GPU, generally the cores are mostly spinning uselessly, whilst waiting for data to gradually get to them, from global memory. Whatever you can do to optimize this process, prevent conflicting demands, and so on, will make the kernel significantly faster.