While profiling application with nvprof I found both PtoP and DtoD memcpy. I am not sure about the difference between these two.
Device to device (DtoD) is a copy within a single GPU.
Peer to Peer (PtoP) is from one GPU to another.
The latter only happens in multi-GPU systems.
And for other transfers host refers to CPU, device refers to GPU.
The naming device to device transfer predates a lot of the work on multiple GPUs, otherwise the naming might have been a little different.
Related
I have Tesla K20m GPU card from NVIDIA. In CUDA 5.0 onwards multiple processes from the same application on same GPU is allowed. Does CUDA allow execution of different applications on same GPU at the same time?
Depends what do you mean by 'at the same time'. If you mean 'two applications have CUDA contexts on same card at the same time' then yes.
Though you may want to use MPS to get full benefits and reduce context switching. See also this question.
Multiple applications may run at the same time on the same GPU. Namely, multiple applications can have a CUDA context at the same time and launch kernels, copy memory, etc...
But kernels from different CUDA contexts cannot be executed simultaneously on the same GPU. Meaning, at the very same slice of time, only kernels from a single CUDA context may be executed on a GPU. This may cause a GPU underutilization if kernels do not occupy the entire GPU resources (memory + compute), and some of the resources may be left unused.
MPS enables that by actually having a server with a single CUDA context, and all client processes communicate with the GPU device through this server, and eventually using its single CUDA context. This enables actual concurrency between kernel launches from different (logical) CUDA contexts.
With CPU and memory it's simple.
A process has a large virtual address space, which is partially mapped into physical memory. When the current process attempts to access a page that is not in physical memory, OS steps in, chooses a page to swap (e.g. with Round Robin), swaps it into disc, then reads the required page from the swap, and the control is returned back to the process. This is straightforward, because the process cannot continue without having that page.
GPU kernels is a different story.
Let's consider a usecase:
A high-priority [cpu] process, namely X, makes a call to kernel (which is a blocking call). At this moment, it is reasonable for OS to switch contexts and give the CPU to a different process, namely Z. For the sake of example, let the process Z also do something heavy with the GPU.
Now, what does the GPU driver do? Does it stop the kernel that belongs to [higher prioritized] X? Does it inform OS that Z isn't prioritized enough to offload kernels of X? In general, what happens when two processes need GPU resources, but the available GPU memory is sufficient to serve only one of them at a time?
CUDA GPUs context-switch cooperatively at a coarse granularity (think "memcpy" or "kernel launch"). If there is enough memory for both contexts, the hardware is happy to cooperatively context switch between them at a slight performance cost. (But because it's cooperative, long-running kernels will interfere with other kernels' execution.)
Modern GPUs do support virtual memory (i.e. memory protection through address translation), but they do NOT support demand paging. That means every piece of memory accessible to the GPU (device memory and mapped pinned memory) must be physically present and mapped after allocation.
The Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) introduced in Windows Vista does paging at a very coarse granularity. The driver is required to track which "memory objects" are needed to execute a given command buffer, and the OS ensures that they are present. The OS can swap them out when not needed. The wrinkle with CUDA is that since pointers can be stored, all memory objects associated with the CUDA address space must be resident in order to run a CUDA kernel. So the paging doesn't work as well for CUDA as it does for graphics applications, which WDDM was designed to run.
I heard about peer-to-peer memory transfers and read something about it but could not really understand how much fast this is compared to standard PCI-E bus transfers.
I have a CUDA application which uses more than one gpu and I might be interested in P2P transfers. My question is: how fast is it compared to PCI-E? Can I use it often to have two devices communicate with each other?
A CUDA "peer" refers to another GPU that is capable of accessing data from the current GPU. All GPUs with compute 2.0 and greater have this feature enabled.
Peer to peer memory copies involve using cudaMemcpy to copy memory over PCI-E as shown below.
cudaMemcpy(dst, src, bytes, cudaMemcpyDeviceToDevice);
Note that dst and src can be on different devices.
cudaDeviceEnablePeerAccess enables the user to launch a kernel that uses data from multiple devices. The memory accesses are still done over PCI-E and will have the same bottlenecks.
A good example of this would be simplep2p from the cuda samples.
NVIDIA offers GPUDirect to reduce memory transfer overheads. I'm wondering if there is a similar concept for AMD/ATI? Specifically:
1) Do AMD GPUs avoid the second memory transfer when interfacing with network cards, as described here. In case the graphic is lost at some point, here is a description of the impact of GPUDirect on getting data from a GPU on one machine to be transferred across a network interface: With GPUDirect, GPU memory goes to Host memory then straight to the network interface card. Without GPUDirect, GPU memory goes to Host memory in one address space, then the CPU has to do a copy to get the memory into another Host memory address space, then it can go out to the network card.
2) Do AMD GPUs allow P2P memory transfers when two GPUs are shared on the same PCIe bus, as described here. In case the graphic is lost at some point, here is a description of the impact of GPUDirect on transferring data between GPUs on the same PCIe bus: With GPUDirect, data can move directly between GPUs on the same PCIe bus, without touching host memory. Without GPUDirect, data always has to go back to the host before it can get to another GPU, regardless of where that GPU is located.
Edit: BTW, I'm not entirely sure how much of GPUDirect is vaporware and how much of it is actually useful. I've never actually heard of a GPU programmer using it for something real. Thoughts on this are welcome too.
Although this question is pretty old, I would like to add my answer as I believe the current information here is incomplete.
As stated in the answer by #Ani, you could allocate a host memory using CL_MEM_ALLOC_HOST_PTR and you will most likely get a pinned host memory that avoids the second copy depending on the implementation. For instance, NVidia OpenCL Best Practices Guide states:
OpenCL applications do not have direct control over whether memory objects are
allocated in pinned memory or not, but they can create objects using the
CL_MEM_ALLOC_HOST_PTR flag and such objects are likely to be allocated in
pinned memory by the driver for best performance
The thing I find missing from previous answers is the fact that AMD offers DirectGMA technology. This technology enables you to transfer data between the GPU and any other peripheral on the PCI bus (including other GPUs) directly witout having to go through system memory. It is more similar to NVidia's RDMA (not available on all platforms).
In order to use this technology you must:
have a compatible AMD GPU (not all of them support DirectGMA). you can use either OpenCL, DirectX or OpenGL extentions provided by AMD.
have the peripheral driver (network card, video capture card etc) either expose a physical address to which the GPU DMA engine can read/write from/to. Or be able to program the peripheral DMA engine to transfer data to / from the GPU exposed memory.
I used this technology to transfer data directly from video capture devices to the GPU memory and from the GPU memory to a proprietary FPGA. Both cases were very efficent and did not involve any extra copying.
Interfacing OpenCL with PCIe devices
I think you may be looking for the CL_MEM_ALLOC_HOST_PTR flag in clCreateBuffer. While the OpenCL specification states that this flag "This flag specifies that the application wants the OpenCL implementation to allocate memory from host accessible memory", it is uncertain what AMD's implementation (or other implementations) might do with it.
Here's an informative thread on the topic http://www.khronos.org/message_boards/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2440
Hope this helps.
Edit: I do know that nVidia's OpenCL SDK implements this as allocation in pinned/page-locked memory. I am fairly certain this is what AMD's OpenCL SDK does when running on the GPU.
As pointed out by #ananthonline and #harrism, many of the features of GPUDirect have no direct equivalent in OpenCL. However, if you are trying to reduce memory transfer overhead, as mentioned in the first sentence of your question, zero copy memory might help. Normally, when an application creates a buffer on the GPU, the contents of the buffer are copied from CPU memory to GPU memory en masse. With zero copy memory, there is no upfront copy; instead, data is copied over as it is accessed by the GPU kernel.
Zero copy does not make sense for all applications. Here is advice from the AMD APP OpenCL Programming Guide on when to use it:
Zero copy host resident memory objects can boost performance when host
memory is accessed by the device in a sparse manner or when a large
host memory buffer is shared between multiple devices and the copies
are too expensive. When choosing this, the cost of the transfer must
be greater than the extra cost of the slower accesses.
Table 4.3 of the Programming Guide describes which flags to pass to clCreateBuffer to take advantage of zero copy (either CL_MEM_ALLOC_HOST_PTR or CL_MEM_USE_PERSISTENT_MEM_AMD, depending on whether you want device-accessible host memory or host-accessible device memory). Note that zero copy support is dependent on both the OS and the hardware; it appears to not be supported under Linux or older versions of Windows.
AMD APP OpenCL Programming Guide: http://developer.amd.com/sdks/AMDAPPSDK/assets/AMD_Accelerated_Parallel_Processing_OpenCL_Programming_Guide.pdf
Where can I find information / changesets / suggestions for using the new enhancements in CUDA 4.0? I'm especially interested in learning about Unified Virtual Addressing?
Note: I would really like to see an example were we can access the RAM directly from the GPU.
Yes, using host memory (if that is what you mean by RAM) will most likely slow your program down, because transfers to/from the GPU take some time and are limited by RAM and PCI bus transfer rates. Try to keep everything in GPU memory. Upload once, execute kernel(s), download once. If you need anything more complicated try to use asynchronous memory transfers with streams.
As far as I know "Unified Virtual Addressing" is really more about using multiple devices, abstracting from explicit memory management. Think of it as a single virtual GPU, everything else still valid.
Using host memory automatically is already possible with device-mapped-memory. See cudaMalloc* in the reference manual found at the nvidia cuda website.
CUDA 4.0 UVA (Unified Virtual Address) does not help you in accessing the main memory from the CUDA threads. As in the previous versions of CUDA, you still have to map the main memory using CUDA API for direct access from GPU threads, but it will slow down the performance as mentioned above. Similarly, you cannot access GPU device memory from CPU thread just by dereferencing the pointer to the device memory. UVA only guarantees that the address spaces do not overlap across multiple devices (including CPU memory), and does not provide coherent accessibility.