How can I create a CUDA context?
The first call of CUDA is slow and I want to create the context before I launch my kernel.
The canonical way to force runtime API context establishment is to call cudaFree(0). If you have multiple devices, call cudaSetDevice() with the ID of the device you want to establish a context on, then cudaFree(0) to establish the context.
EDIT: Note that as of CUDA 5.0, it appears that the heuristics of context establishment are slightly different and cudaSetDevice() itself establishes context on the device is it called on. So the explicit cudaFree(0) call is no longer necessary (although it won't hurt anything).
Using the runtime API: cudaDeviceSynchronize, cudaDeviceGetLimit, or anything that actually accesses the context should work.
I'm quite certain you're not using the driver API, as it doesn't do that sort of lazy initialization, but for others' benefit the driver call would be cuCtxCreate.
Note: The question has been updated to address the questions that have been raised in the comments, and to emphasize that the core of the question is about the interdependencies between the Runtime- and Driver API
The CUDA runtime libraries (like CUBLAS or CUFFT) are generally using the concept of a "handle" that summarizes the state and context of such a library. The usage pattern is quite simple:
// Create a handle
cublasHandle_t handle;
cublasCreate(&handle);
// Call some functions, always passing in the handle as the first argument
cublasSscal(handle, ...);
// When done, destroy the handle
cublasDestroy(handle);
However, there are many subtle details about how these handles interoperate with Driver- and Runtime contexts and multiple threads and devices. The documentation lists several, scattered details about context handling:
The general description of contexts in the CUDA Programming Guide at http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/index.html#context
The handling of multiple contexts, as described in the CUDA Best Practices Guide at http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-best-practices-guide/index.html#multiple-contexts
The context management differences between runtime and driver API, explained at http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-driver-api/driver-vs-runtime-api.html
The general description of CUBLAS contexts/handles at http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cublas/index.html#cublas-context and their thread safety at http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cublas/index.html#thread-safety2
However, some of information seems to be not entirely up to date (for example, I think one should use cuCtxSetCurrent instead of cuCtxPushCurrent and cuCtxPopCurrent?), some of it seems to be from a time before the "Primary Context" handling was exposed via the driver API, and some parts are oversimplified in that they only show the most simple usage patterns, make only vague or incomplete statements about multithreading, or cannot be applied to the concept of "handles" that is used in the runtime libraries.
My goal is to implement a runtime library that offers its own "handle" type, and that allows usage patterns that are equivalent to the other runtime libraries in terms of context handling and thread safety.
For the case that the library can internally be implemented solely using the Runtime API, things may be clear: The context management is solely in the responsibility of the user. If he creates an own driver context, the rules that are stated in the documentation about the Runtime- and Driver context management will apply. Otherwise, the Runtime API functions will take care of the handling of primary contexts.
However, there may be the case that a library will internally have to use the Driver API. For example, in order to load PTX files as CUmodule objects, and obtain the CUfunction objects from them. And when the library should - for the user - behave like a Runtime library, but internally has to use the Driver API, some questions arise about how the context handling has to be implemented "under the hood".
What I have figured out so far is sketched here.
(It is "pseudocode" in that it omits the error checks and other details, and ... all this is supposed to be implemented in Java, but that should not be relevant here)
1. The "Handle" is basically a class/struct containing the following information:
class Handle
{
CUcontext context;
boolean usingPrimaryContext;
CUdevice device;
}
2. When it is created, two cases have to be covered: It can be created when a driver context is current for the calling thread. In this case, it should use this context. Otherwise, it should use the primary context of the current (runtime) device:
Handle createHandle()
{
cuInit(0);
// Obtain the current context
CUcontext context;
cuCtxGetCurrent(&context);
CUdevice device;
// If there is no context, use the primary context
boolean usingPrimaryContext = false;
if (context == nullptr)
{
usingPrimaryContext = true;
// Obtain the device that is currently selected via the runtime API
int deviceIndex;
cudaGetDevice(&deviceIndex);
// Obtain the device and its primary context
cuDeviceGet(&device, deviceIndex);
cuDevicePrimaryCtxRetain(&context, device));
cuCtxSetCurrent(context);
}
else
{
cuCtxGetDevice(device);
}
// Create the actual handle. This might internally allocate
// memory or do other things that are specific for the context
// for which the handle is created
Handle handle = new Handle(device, context, usingPrimaryContext);
return handle;
}
3. When invoking a kernel of the library, the context of the associated handle is made current for the calling thread:
void someLibraryFunction(Handle handle)
{
cuCtxSetCurrent(handle.context);
callMyKernel(...);
}
Here, one could argue that the caller is responsible for making sure that the required context is current. But if the handle was created for a primary context, then this context will be made current automatically.
4. When the handle is destroyed, this means that cuDevicePrimaryCtxRelease has to be called, but only when the context is a primary context:
void destroyHandle(Handle handle)
{
if (handle.usingPrimaryContext)
{
cuDevicePrimaryCtxRelease(handle.device);
}
}
From my experiments so far, this seems to expose the same behavior as a CUBLAS handle, for example. But my possibilities for thoroughly testing this are limited, because I only have a single device, and thus cannot test the crucial cases, e.g. of having two contexts, one for each of two devices.
So my questions are:
Are there any established patterns for implementing such a "Handle"?
Are there any usage patterns (e.g. with multiple devices and one context per device) that could not be covered with the approach that is sketched above, but would be covered with the "handle" implementations of CUBLAS?
More generally: Are there any recommendations of how to improve the current "Handle" implementation?
Rhetorical: Is the source code of the CUBLAS handle handling available somewhere?
(I also had a look at the context handling in tensorflow, but I'm not sure whether one can derive recommendations about how to implement handles for a runtime library from that...)
(An "Update" has been removed here, because it was added in response to the comments, and should no longer be relevant)
I'm sorry I hadn't noticed this question sooner - as we might have collaborated on this somewhat. Also, it's not quite clear to me whether this question belongs here, on codereview.SX or on programmers.SX, but let's ignore all that.
I have now done what you were aiming to do, and possibly more generally. So, I can offer both an example of what to do with "handles", and moreover, suggest the prospect of not having to implement this at all.
The library is an expanding of cuda-api-wrappers to also cover the Driver API and NVRTC; it is not yet release-grade, but it is in the testing phase, on this branch.
Now, to answer your concrete question:
Pattern for writing a class surrounding a raw "handle"
Are there any established patterns for implementing such a "Handle"?
Yes. If you read:
What is the difference between: Handle, Pointer and Reference
you'll notice a handle is defined as an "opaque reference to an object". It has some similarity to a pointer. A relevant pattern, therefore, is a variation on the PIMPL idiom: In regular PIMPL, you write an implementation class, and the outwards-facing class only holds a pointer to the implementation class and forwards method calls to it. When you have an opaque handle to an opaque object in some third-party library or driver - you use the handle to forward method calls to that implementation.
That means, that your outwards-facing class is not a handle, it represents the object to which you have a handle.
Generality and flexibility
Are there any usage patterns (e.g. with multiple devices and one context per device) that could not be covered with the approach that is sketched above, but would be covered with the "handle" implementations of CUBLAS?
I'm not sure what exactly CUBLAS does under the hood (and I have almost never used CUBLAS to be honest), but if it were well-designed and implemented, it would
create its own context, and try to not to impinge on the rest of your code, i.e. it would alwas do:
Push our CUBLAS context onto the top of the stack
Do actual work
Pop the top of the context stack.
Your class doesn't do this.
More generally: Are there any recommendations of how to improve the current "Handle" implementation?
Yes:
Use RAII whenever it is possible and relevant. If your creation code allocates a resource (e.g. via the CUDA driver) - the destructor for the object you return should safely release those resources.
Allow for both reference-type and value-type use of Handles, i.e. it may be the handle I created, but it may also be a handle I got from somewhere else and isn't my responsibility. This is trivial if you leave it up to the user to release resources, but a bit tricky if you take that responsibility
You assume that if there's any current context, that's the one your handle needs to use. Says who? At the very least, let the user pass a context in if they want to.
Avoid writing the low-level parts of this on your own unless you really must. You are quite likely to miss some things (the push-and-pop is not the only thing you might be missing), and you're repeating a lot of work that is actually generic and not specific to your application or library. I may be biased here, but you can now use nice, RAII-ish, wrappers for CUDA contexts, streams, modules, devices etc. without even known about raw handles for anything.
Rhetorical: Is the source code of the CUBLAS handle handling available somewhere?
To the best of my knowledge, NVIDIA hasn't released it.
How can I create a CUDA context?
The first call of CUDA is slow and I want to create the context before I launch my kernel.
The canonical way to force runtime API context establishment is to call cudaFree(0). If you have multiple devices, call cudaSetDevice() with the ID of the device you want to establish a context on, then cudaFree(0) to establish the context.
EDIT: Note that as of CUDA 5.0, it appears that the heuristics of context establishment are slightly different and cudaSetDevice() itself establishes context on the device is it called on. So the explicit cudaFree(0) call is no longer necessary (although it won't hurt anything).
Using the runtime API: cudaDeviceSynchronize, cudaDeviceGetLimit, or anything that actually accesses the context should work.
I'm quite certain you're not using the driver API, as it doesn't do that sort of lazy initialization, but for others' benefit the driver call would be cuCtxCreate.
I am working on a gpu trace emulation tool in windows as part of my research work in grad school . I am working on cuda runtime trace emulation to be specific.
I use simple DLL injection using MS Detours to enable interception of the cuda runtime APIs. I store the API calls and their parameters in a trace file. I get into some problems while trying to emulate the API from my trace file(I use the word playback to denote this action)
A typical trace file begins by making calls to __cudaRegisterFatBinary and __cudaRegisterFunction. This is followed by a call to cudaMalloc.
What I did?
1) I came across the famous GPUOcelot and I found the cubin structure that Nvidia is using right now. I am using that to save the address parameter of cudaRegisterFatBinary in intercept mode and I am using the pointer in the playback for _cudaRegisterFatBinary by repopulating the structure in the memory.
2)In _cudaRegisterFunction I am not sure what the parameters hostFunction,Device Function and Device Name refer to. I mean I don't understand how I could populate it while playing back from my trace file. I am just saving the pointer from the original execution and using it to imitate the call. But there is no way of knowing whether the function goes through fine since it does not have a return value.
3)cudaMalloc following these two entry point functions return cuda error code 11. It is cuda invalid value according to the Nvidia documentation. I have no idea why this should be the case. I am assuming that something is wrong with the previous two function calls. I also have a feeling that something is wrong with implicit primary context creation by the cuda runtime. Can someone give me some insights about cuda runtime execution and point me to what might I be missing?
I know its a ton of information without any useful code. I dont know which part of the code to post here. I will do it when people start taking interest in my question and ask me specific things about my project. Initially am just hoping that I am missing something big and high level that one of you can spot.
I greatly appreciate your time and interest!
Sounds very interesting overall. Your "Error:Cuda invalid value" is could be related to the params of _cudaRegisterFunction. The param 'DeviceName' sounds like it identifies which GPU (card?) to use. Check the CUDA SDK, there are many demos that enumerate the GPUs on the system, perhaps these values are valid for 'DeviceName'. As for 'hostFunction' and 'deviceFunction', these sound like either function IDs, or perhaps function pointers. Also, you can call 'cudaGetLastError()' to test whether the function call was successful (it returns 'cudaSuccess' if everything is ok... take a look at the error logging macros in the sdk). Good luck!
Lets imagine the situation, that I have a lot of initialized resources for example: streams, host and device memory end events, part of them are initialized in context of one GPU and the rest of them belong to the other GPU context.
Is there a way to check if given resource (event, stream or memory) belongs to certain GPU context?
In some case it would worthy to assert such things, before order memory copy or kernel execution and then get cudaErrorInvalidArgument.
I am not really aware of such option in CUDA API itself. It is just a low-level sets of orders that you can issue to your GPU.
What I would do is to wrap the CUDA API functions into some nice class which would track what is where and what is initialised. A class representing a GPU might be useful as well.