Time complexity of a function? - function

What are the steps I need to take to work out the time complexity of this function in terms of N? Or any function?
I'm essentially asking how to evaluate algorithm complexity in Big O notation?
int f(int N) {
if (N<2) return 1;
return f(N-1)+f(N-2);
}

Related

How do I run microbenchmarks in CUDA without the optimizer messing with me?

I've been trying to benchmark the modulus operation in CUDA against some custom modulus operations, currently I use the following function.
__inline__ __device__ uint64_t modop(uint64_t& a, uint32_t& q) {
uint64_t c;
for (int j = 0; j < REPEAT; j++) {
c = a % q;
}
return c;
}
My problem is that I believe the compiler is being clever and optimizing the loop away as it's unreasonably fast. I've trying clobbering my variables with asm volatile("" : "=l"(c)::"memory"); but for a it does nothing and for c it breaks everything.
What can I do to benchmark simple operations like this on CUDA?

There is in-kernel measurement with clock_t returning function clock(). You can use its return value to stop optimizations too (like repeating until clock increments at least 1000 cycles and then measuring number of repeats to be divided by total cycles). Compiler can not predict time.
clock_t a =clock();
clock_t q =clock();
int repeats=0;
while(q-a<1000)
{
c=a%q;
repeats++;
q=clock();
}
perf = repeats / (float)(q - a - (latencyClock + latencyIncrement)*repeats);
Then in performance calculations, subtract clock()(and ++) latency times repeats from total latency.
This enforces each thread to run a different value of modulo as opposed to a single-kernel code for all threads. So the kernel can not be optimized globally.

Simple method to calculate power of a number without any extern function

I look for a simple method for calculating the power of a number without using any extern function, only one loop and one if/else condition.
It takes only an integer for power (positive, negative and zero).
I make this function in pseudo language if anybody knows another method?
function power(x,n)
{
var index, result=1;
if (n<0) then
{
x=1/x;
n=-n;
}
foreach index from 0 to n
{
result=result*x;
}
return result;
}

Thrust vector transformation involving neighbor elements

I have a vector, and I would like to do the following, using CUDA and Thrust transformations:
// thrust::device_vector v;
// for k times:
// calculate constants a and b as functions of k;
// for (i=0; i < v.size(); i++)
// v[i] = a*v[i] + b*v[i+1];
How should I correctly implement this? One way I can do it is to have vector w, and apply thrust::transform onto v and save the results to w. But k is unknown ahead of time, and I don't want to create w1, w2, ... and waste a lot of GPU memory space. Preferably I want to minimize the amount of data copying. But I'm not sure how to implement this using one vector without the values stepping on each other. Is there something Thrust provides that can do this?

If the v.size() is large enough to fully utilize the GPU, you could launch k kernels to do this, with a extra buffer mem and no extra data transfer.
thrust::device_vector u(v.size());
for(k=0;;)
{
// calculate a & b
thrust::transform(v.begin(), v.end()-1, v.begin()+1, u.begin(), a*_1 + b*_2);
k++;
if(k>=K)
break;
// calculate a & b
thrust::transform(u.begin(), u.end()-1, u.begin()+1, v.begin(), a*_1 + b*_2);
k++;
if(k>=K)
break;
}

I don't actually understand the "k times", but the following code may help you.
struct OP {
const int a, b;
OP(const int p, const int q): a(p), b(q){};
int operator()(const int v1, const int v2) {
return a*v1+b*v2;
}
}
thrust::device_vector<int> w(v.size());
thrust::transform(v.begin(), v.end()-1, //input_1
v.begin()+1, //input_2
w.begin(), //output
OP(a, b)); //functor
v = w;
I think learning about "functor", and several examples of thrust will give you a good guide.
Hope this will help you to solve your problem. :)

Thrust - accessing neighbors

I would like to use Thrust's stream compaction functionality (copy_if) for distilling indices of elements from a vector if the elements adhere to a number of constraints. One of these constraints depends on the values of neighboring elements (8 in 2D and 26 in 3D). My question is: how can I obtain the neighbors of an element in Thrust?
The function call operator of the functor for the 'copy_if' basically looks like:
__host__ __device__ bool operator()(float x) {
bool mark = x < 0.0f;
if (mark) {
if (left neighbor of x > 1.0f) return false;
if (right neighbor of x > 1.0f) return false;
if (top neighbor of x > 1.0f) return false;
//etc.
}
return mark;
}
Currently I use a work-around by first launching a CUDA kernel (in which it is easy to access neighbors) to appropriately mark the elements. After that, I pass the marked elements to Thrust's copy_if to distill the indices of the marked elements.
I came across counting_iterator as a sort of substitute for directly using threadIdx and blockIdx to acquire the index of the processed element. I tried the solution below, but when compiling it, it gives me a "/usr/include/cuda/thrust/detail/device/cuda/copy_if.inl(151): Error: Unaligned memory accesses not supported". As far as I know I'm not trying to access memory in an unaligned fashion. Anybody knows what's going on and/or how to fix this?
struct IsEmpty2 {
float* xi;
IsEmpty2(float* pXi) { xi = pXi; }
__host__ __device__ bool operator()(thrust::tuple<float, int> t) {
bool mark = thrust::get<0>(t) < -0.01f;
if (mark) {
int countindex = thrust::get<1>(t);
if (xi[countindex] > 1.01f) return false;
//etc.
}
return mark;
}
};
thrust::copy_if(indices.begin(),
indices.end(),
thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(xi, thrust::counting_iterator<int>())),
indicesEmptied.begin(),
IsEmpty2(rawXi));

#phoad: you're right about the shared mem, it struck me after I already posted my reply, subsequently thinking that the cache probably will help me. But you beat me with your quick response. The if-statement however is executed in less than 5% of all cases, so either using shared mem or relying on the cache will probably have negligible impact on performance.
Tuples only support 10 values, so that would mean I would require tuples of tuples for the 26 values in the 3D case. Working with tuples and zip_iterator was already quite cumbersome, so I'll pass for this option (also from a code readability stand point). I tried your suggestion by directly using threadIdx.x etc. in the device function, but Thrust doesn't like that. I seem to be getting some unexplainable results and sometimes I end up with an Thrust error. The following program for example generates a 'thrust::system::system_error' with an 'unspecified launch failure', although it first correctly prints "Processing 10" to "Processing 41":
struct printf_functor {
__host__ __device__ void operator()(int e) {
printf("Processing %d\n", threadIdx.x);
}
};
int main() {
thrust::device_vector<int> dVec(32);
for (int i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
dVec[i] = i + 10;
thrust::for_each(dVec.begin(), dVec.end(), printf_functor());
return 0;
}
Same applies to printing blockIdx.x Printing blockDim.x however generates no error. I was hoping for a clean solution, but I guess I am stuck with my current work-around solution.

Translation from Complex-FFT to Finite-Field-FFT

Good afternoon!
I am trying to develop an NTT algorithm based on the naive recursive FFT implementation I already have.
Consider the following code (coefficients' length, let it be m, is an exact power of two):
/// <summary>
/// Calculates the result of the recursive Number Theoretic Transform.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="coefficients"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
private static BigInteger[] Recursive_NTT_Skeleton(
IList<BigInteger> coefficients,
IList<BigInteger> rootsOfUnity,
int step,
int offset)
{
// Calculate the length of vectors at the current step of recursion.
// -
int n = coefficients.Count / step - offset / step;
if (n == 1)
{
return new BigInteger[] { coefficients[offset] };
}
BigInteger[] results = new BigInteger[n];
IList<BigInteger> resultEvens =
Recursive_NTT_Skeleton(coefficients, rootsOfUnity, step * 2, offset);
IList<BigInteger> resultOdds =
Recursive_NTT_Skeleton(coefficients, rootsOfUnity, step * 2, offset + step);
for (int k = 0; k < n / 2; k++)
{
BigInteger bfly = (rootsOfUnity[k * step] * resultOdds[k]) % NTT_MODULUS;
results[k] = (resultEvens[k] + bfly) % NTT_MODULUS;
results[k + n / 2] = (resultEvens[k] - bfly) % NTT_MODULUS;
}
return results;
}
It worked for complex FFT (replace BigInteger with a complex numeric type (I had my own)). It doesn't work here even though I changed the procedure of finding the primitive roots of unity appropriately.
Supposedly, the problem is this: rootsOfUnity parameter passed originally contained only the first half of m-th complex roots of unity in this order:
omega^0 = 1, omega^1, omega^2, ..., omega^(n/2)
It was enough, because on these three lines of code:
BigInteger bfly = (rootsOfUnity[k * step] * resultOdds[k]) % NTT_MODULUS;
results[k] = (resultEvens[k] + bfly) % NTT_MODULUS;
results[k + n / 2] = (resultEvens[k] - bfly) % NTT_MODULUS;
I originally made use of the fact, that at any level of recursion (for any n and i), the complex root of unity -omega^(i) = omega^(i + n/2).
However, that property obviously doesn't hold in finite fields. But is there any analogue of it which would allow me to still compute only the first half of the roots?
Or should I extend the cycle from n/2 to n and pre-compute all the m-th roots of unity?
Maybe there are other problems with this code?..
Thank you very much in advance!

I recently wanted to implement NTT for fast multiplication instead of DFFT too. Read a lot of confusing things, different letters everywhere and no simple solution, and also my finite fields knowledge is rusty , but today i finally got it right (after 2 days of trying and analog-ing with DFT coefficients) so here are my insights for NTT:
Computation
X(i) = sum(j=0..n-1) of ( Wn^(i*j)*x(i) );
where X[] is NTT transformed x[] of size n where Wn is the NTT basis. All computations are on integer modulo arithmetics mod p no complex numbers anywhere.
Important values
Wn = r ^ L mod p is basis for NTT
Wn = r ^ (p-1-L) mod p is basis for INTT
Rn = n ^ (p-2) mod p is scaling multiplicative constant for INTT ~(1/n)
p is prime that p mod n == 1 and p>max'
max is max value of x[i] for NTT or X[i] for INTT
r = <1,p)
L = <1,p) and also divides p-1
r,L must be combined so r^(L*i) mod p == 1 if i=0 or i=n
r,L must be combined so r^(L*i) mod p != 1 if 0 < i < n
max' is the sub-result max value and depends on n and type of computation. For single (I)NTT it is max' = n*max but for convolution of two n sized vectors it is max' = n*max*max etc. See Implementing FFT over finite fields for more info about it.
functional combination of r,L,p is different for different n
this is important, you have to recompute or select parameters from table before each NTT layer (n is always half of the previous recursion).
Here is my C++ code that finds the r,L,p parameters (needs modular arithmetics which is not included, you can replace it with (a+b)%c,(a-b)%c,(a*b)%c,... but in that case beware of overflows especial for modpow and modmul) The code is not optimized yet there are ways to speed it up considerably. Also prime table is fairly limited so either use SoE or any other algo to obtain primes up to max' in order to work safely.
DWORD _arithmetics_primes[]=
{
2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,89,97,101,103,107,109,113,127,131,137,139,149,151,157,163,167,173,
179,181,191,193,197,199,211,223,227,229,233,239,241,251,257,263,269,271,277,281,283,293,307,311,313,317,331,337,347,349,353,359,367,373,379,383,389,397,401,409,
419,421,431,433,439,443,449,457,461,463,467,479,487,491,499,503,509,521,523,541,547,557,563,569,571,577,587,593,599,601,607,613,617,619,631,641,643,647,653,659,
661,673,677,683,691,701,709,719,727,733,739,743,751,757,761,769,773,787,797,809,811,821,823,827,829,839,853,857,859,863,877,881,883,887,907,911,919,929,937,941,
947,953,967,971,977,983,991,997,1009,1013,1019,1021,1031,1033,1039,1049,1051,1061,1063,1069,1087,1091,1093,1097,1103,1109,1117,1123,1129,1151,
0}; // end of table is 0, the more primes are there the bigger numbers and n can be used
// compute NTT consts W=r^L%p for n
int i,j,k,n=16;
long w,W,iW,p,r,L,l,e;
long max=81*n; // edit1: max num for NTT for my multiplication purposses
for (e=1,j=0;e;j++) // find prime p that p%n=1 AND p>max ... 9*9=81
{
p=_arithmetics_primes[j];
if (!p) break;
if ((p>max)&&(p%n==1))
for (r=2;r<p;r++) // check all r
{
for (l=1;l<p;l++)// all l that divide p-1
{
L=(p-1);
if (L%l!=0) continue;
L/=l;
W=modpow(r,L,p);
e=0;
for (w=1,i=0;i<=n;i++,w=modmul(w,W,p))
{
if ((i==0) &&(w!=1)) { e=1; break; }
if ((i==n) &&(w!=1)) { e=1; break; }
if ((i>0)&&(i<n)&&(w==1)) { e=1; break; }
}
if (!e) break;
}
if (!e) break;
}
}
if (e) { error; } // error no combination r,l,p for n found
W=modpow(r, L,p); // Wn for NTT
iW=modpow(r,p-1-L,p); // Wn for INTT
and here is my slow NTT and INTT implementations (i havent got to fast NTT,INTT yet) they are both tested with Schönhage–Strassen multiplication successfully.
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void NTT(long *dst,long *src,long n,long m,long w)
{
long i,j,wj,wi,a,n2=n>>1;
for (wj=1,j=0;j<n;j++)
{
a=0;
for (wi=1,i=0;i<n;i++)
{
a=modadd(a,modmul(wi,src[i],m),m);
wi=modmul(wi,wj,m);
}
dst[j]=a;
wj=modmul(wj,w,m);
}
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void INTT(long *dst,long *src,long n,long m,long w)
{
long i,j,wi=1,wj=1,rN,a,n2=n>>1;
rN=modpow(n,m-2,m);
for (wj=1,j=0;j<n;j++)
{
a=0;
for (wi=1,i=0;i<n;i++)
{
a=modadd(a,modmul(wi,src[i],m),m);
wi=modmul(wi,wj,m);
}
dst[j]=modmul(a,rN,m);
wj=modmul(wj,w,m);
}
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dst is destination array
src is source array
n is array size
m is modulus (p)
w is basis (Wn)
hope this helps to someone. If i forgot something please write ...
[edit1: fast NTT/INTT]
Finally I manage to get fast NTT/INTT to work. Was little bit more tricky than normal FFT:
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void _NFTT(long *dst,long *src,long n,long m,long w)
{
if (n<=1) { if (n==1) dst[0]=src[0]; return; }
long i,j,a0,a1,n2=n>>1,w2=modmul(w,w,m);
// reorder even,odd
for (i=0,j=0;i<n2;i++,j+=2) dst[i]=src[j];
for ( j=1;i<n ;i++,j+=2) dst[i]=src[j];
// recursion
_NFTT(src ,dst ,n2,m,w2); // even
_NFTT(src+n2,dst+n2,n2,m,w2); // odd
// restore results
for (w2=1,i=0,j=n2;i<n2;i++,j++,w2=modmul(w2,w,m))
{
a0=src[i];
a1=modmul(src[j],w2,m);
dst[i]=modadd(a0,a1,m);
dst[j]=modsub(a0,a1,m);
}
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void _INFTT(long *dst,long *src,long n,long m,long w)
{
long i,rN;
rN=modpow(n,m-2,m);
_NFTT(dst,src,n,m,w);
for (i=0;i<n;i++) dst[i]=modmul(dst[i],rN,m);
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[edit3]
I have optimized my code (3x times faster than code above),but still i am not satisfied with it so i started new question with it. There I have optimized my code even further (about 40x times faster than code above) so its almost the same speed as FFT on floating point of the same bit size. Link to it is here:
Modular arithmetics and NTT (finite field DFT) optimizations

To turn Cooley-Tukey (complex) FFT into modular arithmetic approach, i.e. NTT, you must replace complex definition for omega. For the approach to be purely recursive, you also need to recalculate omega for each level based on current signal size. This is possible because min. suitable modulus decreases as we move down in the call tree, so modulus used for root is suitable for lower layers. Additionally, as we are using same modulus, the same generator may be used as we move down the call tree. Also, for inverse transform, you should take additional step to take recalculated omega a and instead use as omega: b = a ^ -1 (via using inverse modulo operation). Specifically, b = invMod(a, N) s.t. b * a == 1 (mod N), where N is the chosen prime modulus.
Rewriting an expression involving omega by exploiting periodicity still works in modular arithmetic realm. You also need to find a way to determine the modulus (a prime) for the problem and a valid generator.
We note that your code works, though it is not a MWE. We extended it using common sense, and got correct result for a polynomial multiplication application. You just have to provide correct values of omega raised to certain powers.
While your code works, though, like from many other sources, you double spacing for each level. This does not lead to recursion that is as clean, though; this turns out to be identical to recalculating omega based on current signal size because the power for omega definition is inversely proportional to signal size. To reiterate: halving signal size is like squaring omega, which is like giving doubled powers for omega (which is what one would do for doubling of spacing). The nice thing about the approach that deals with recalculating of omega is that each subproblem is more cleanly complete in its own right.
There is a paper that shows some of the math for modular approach; it is a paper by Baktir and Sunar from 2006. See the paper at the end of this post.
You do not need to extend the cycle from n / 2 to n.
So, yes, some sources which say to just drop in a different omega definition for modular arithmetic approach are sweeping under the rug many details.
Another issue is that it is important to acknowledge that the signal size must be large enough if we are to not have overflow for result time-domain signal if we are performing convolution. Additionally, it may be useful to find certain implementations for exponentiation subject to modulus exist that are fast, even if the power is quite large.
References
Baktir and Sunar - Achieving efficient polynomial multiplication in Fermat fields using the fast Fourier transform (2006)

You must make sure that roots of unity actually exist. In R there are only 2 roots of unity: 1 and -1, since only for them x^n=1 can be true.
In C you have infinitely many roots of unity: w=exp(2*pi*i/N) is a primitive N-th roots of unity and all w^k for 0<=k
Now to your problem: you have to make sure the ring you're working in offers the same property: enough roots of unity.
Schönhage and Strassen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6nhage%E2%80%93Strassen_algorithm) use integers modulo 2^N+1. This ring has enough roots of unity. 2^N == -1 is a 2nd root of unity, 2^(N/2) is a 4th root of unity and so on. Furthermore, these roots of unity have the advantage that they are powers of two and can be implemented as binary shifts (with a modulo operation afterwards, which comes down to a add/subtract).
I think QuickMul (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/doc/qmul.ps) works modulo 2^N-1.