I'm in trying to improve the performance of my code using asynchronous memory transfer overlapped with GPU computation.
Formerly I had a code where I created an FFT plan, and then make use of it multiple times. In such situation the time invested in creating the CUDA FFT plan is negligible althought according to this earlier post it could be quite significant.
Now that I move to streams, what I'm doing is creating the "same" plan "multiple times" and then setting the CUDA FFT stream. According to the answers given by some of you in this other post this is wasteful. But, is there any other way to do it?
NOTE: I'm acquiring the data in real-time, so launching a "batch" CUDA FFT is out of the question. What I'm doing is to create and lauch a new CUDA stream as a result of a complete pulse transmission.
NOTE 2: I was also considering using a "pool" of "CUDA Streams/FFT Plans" instead but I don't think that would be an elegant, sensible solution, any thoughts?
Is there otherwise a way to "copy" an "existent" fft plan before I assign the CUDA Stream?
Thanks guys!/gals? Hopefully meet some of you in San Jose. =)
Omar
What I'm doing is to create and lauch a new CUDA stream as a result of a complete pulse transmission.
Re-use the streams, rather than creating a new stream each time. Then you can re-use the plan created for that stream ahead of time, and you have no need to recreate the "same" plan on-the-fly.
Perhaps this is what you mean by the pool of streams method. Your criticism is that it is not "elegant" or "sensible". I have no idea what that means. Stream re-use in pipelined algorithms is a common tactic, if for no other reason than to avoid the cudaStreamCreate overhead (whatever it may be, large or small).
A cufft plan has a stream associated with it. You cannot copy a plan without the stream association. A plan is an opaque container.
Related
CUDA 10 added runtime API calls for putting streams (= queues) in "capture mode", so that instead of executing, they are returned in a "graph". These graphs can then be made to actually execute, or they can be cloned.
But what is the rationale behind this feature? Isn't it unlikely to execute the same "graph" twice? After all, even if you do run the "same code", at least the data is different, i.e. the parameters the kernels take likely change. Or - am I missing something?
PS - I skimmed this slide deck, but still didn't get it.
My experience with graphs is indeed that they are not so mutable. You can change the parameters with 'cudaGraphHostNodeSetParams', but in order for the change of parameters to take effect, I had to rebuild the graph executable with 'cudaGraphInstantiate'. This call takes so long that any gain of using graphs is lost (in my case). Setting the parameters only worked for me when I build the graph manually. When getting the graph through stream capture, I was not able to set the parameters of the nodes as you do not have the node pointers. You would think the call 'cudaGraphGetNodes' on a stream captured graph would return you the nodes. But the node pointer returned was NULL for me even though the 'numNodes' variable had the correct number. The documentation explicitly mentions this as a possibility but fails to explain why.
Task graphs are quite mutable.
There are API calls for changing/setting the parameters of task graph nodes of various kinds, so one can use a task graph as a template, so that instead of enqueueing the individual nodes before every execution, one changes the parameters of every node before every execution (and perhaps not all nodes actually need their parameters changed).
For example, See the documentation for cudaGraphHostNodeGetParams and cudaGraphHostNodeSetParams.
Another useful feature is the concurrent kernel executions. Under manual mode, one can add nodes in the graph with dependencies. It will explore the concurrency automatically using multiple streams. The feature itself is not new but make it automatic becomes useful for certain applications.
When training a deep learning model it happens often to re-run the same set of kernels in the same order but with updated data. Also, I would expect Cuda to do optimizations by knowing statically what will be the next kernels. We can imagine that Cuda can fetch more instructions or adapt its scheduling strategy when knowing the whole graph.
CUDA Graphs is trying to solve the problem that in the presence of too many small kernel invocations, you see quite some time spent on the CPU dispatching work for the GPU (overhead).
It allows you to trade resources (time, memory, etc.) to construct a graph of kernels that you can use a single invocation from the CPU instead of doing multiple invocations. If you don't have enough invocations, or your algorithm is different each time, then it won't worth it to build a graph.
This works really well for anything iterative that uses the same computation underneath (e.g., algorithms that need to converge to something) and it's pretty prominent in a lot of applications that are great for GPUs (e.g., think of the Jacobi method).
You are not going to see great results if you have an algorithm that you invoke once or if your kernels are big; in that case the CPU invocation overhead is not your bottleneck. A succinct explanation of when you need it exists in the Getting Started with CUDA Graphs.
Where task graph based paradigms shine though is when you define your program as tasks with dependencies between them. You give a lot of flexibility to the driver / scheduler / hardware to do scheduling itself without much fine-tuning from the developer's part. There's a reason why we have been spending years exploring the ideas of dataflow programming in HPC.
We're trying to develop a Natural Language Processing application that has a user facing component. The user can call models through an API, and get the results back.
The models are pretrained using Keras with Theano. We use GPUs to speed up the training. However, prediction is still sped up significantly by using the GPU. Currently, we have a machine with two GPUs. However, at runtime (e.g. when running the user facing bits) there is a problem: multiple Python processes sharing the GPUs via CUDA does not seem to offer a parallelism speed up.
We're using nvidia-docker with libgpuarray (pygpu), Theano and Keras.
The GPUs are still mostly idle, but adding more Python workers does not speed up the process.
What is the preferred way of solving the problem of running GPU models behind an API? Ideally we'd utilize the existing GPUs more efficiently before buying new ones.
I can imagine that we want some sort of buffer before sending it off to the GPU, rather than requesting a lock for each HTTP call?
This is not an answer to your more general question, but rather an answer based on how I understand the scenario you described.
If someone has coded a system which uses a GPU for some computational task, they have (hopefully) taken the time to parallelize its execution so as to benefit from the full resources the GPU can offer, or something close to that.
That means that if you add a second similar task - even in parallel - the total amount of time to complete them should be similar to the amount of time to complete them serially, i.e. one after the other - since there are very little underutilized GPU resources for the second task to benefit from. In fact, it could even be the case that both tasks will be slower (if, say, they both somehow utilize the L2 cache a lot, and when running together they thrash it).
At any rate, when you want to improve performance, a good thing to do is profile your application - in this case, using the nvprof profiler or its nvvp frontend (the first link is the official documentation, the second link is a presentation).
GPU is really fast when it comes to paralleled computation and out performs CPU with being 15-30 ( some have reported even 50 ) times faster however,
GPU memory is very limited compared to CPU memory and communication between GPU memory and CPU is not as fast.
Lets say we have some data what won't fit into GPU ram but we still want to use
it's wonders to compute. What we can do is split that data into pieces and feed it into GPU one by one.
Sending large data to GPU can take time and one might think, what if we would split a data piece into two and feed the first half, run the kernel and then feed the other half while kernel is running.
By that logic we should save some time because data transfer should be going on while computation is, hopefully not interrupting it's job and when finished, it can just, well, continue it's job without needs for waiting a new data path.
I must say that I'm new to gpgpu, new to cuda but I have been experimenting around with simple cuda codes and have noticed that the function cudaMemcpy used to transfer data between CPU and GPU will block if kerner is running. It will wait until kernel is finished and then will do its job.
My question, is it possible to accomplish something like that described above and if so, could one show an example or provide some information source of how it could be done?
Thank you!
is it possible to accomplish something like that described above
Yes, it's possible. What you're describing is a pipelined algorithm, and CUDA has various asynchronous capabilities to enable it.
The asynchronous concurrent execution section of the programming guide covers the necessary elements in CUDA to make it work. To use your example, there exists a non-blocking version of cudaMemcpy, called cudaMemcpyAsync. You'll need to understand CUDA streams and how to use them.
I would also suggest this presentation which covers most of what is needed.
Finally, here is a worked example. That particular example happens to use CUDA stream callbacks, but those are not necessary for basic pipelining. They enable additional host-oriented processing to be asynchronously triggered at various points in the pipeline, but the basic chunking of data, and delivery of data while processing is occurring does not depend on stream callbacks. Note also the linked CUDA sample codes in that answer, which may be useful for study/learning.
On my application I need to transform each line of an image, apply a filter and transform it back.
I want to be able to make multiple FFT at the same time using the GPU. More precisely, I'm using NVIDIA's CUDA. Now, some considerations:
CUDA's FFT library, CUFFT is only able to make calls from the host ( https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/523177/cufft-device-callable-library/).
On this topic (running FFTW on GPU vs using CUFFT), Robert Corvella says
"cufft routines can be called by multiple host threads".
I believed that doing all this FFTs in parallel would increase performance, but Robert comments
"the FFT operations are of reasonably large size, then just calling the cufft library routines as indicated should give you good speedup and approximately fully utilize the machine"
So,
Is this it? Is there no gain in performing more than one FFT at a time?
Is there any library that supports calls from the device?
Shoud I just use cufftPlanMany() instead (as refered in "is-there-a-method-of-fft-that-will-run-inside-cuda-kernel" by hang or as referred in the previous topic, by Robert)?
Or the best option is to call mutiple host threads?
(this 2 links limit is killing me...)
My objective is to get some discussion on what's the best solution to this problem, since many have faced similar situations.
This might be obsolete once NVIDIA implements device calls on CUFFT.
(something they said they are working on but there is no expected date for the release - something said on the discussion at the NVIDIA forum (first link))
So, Is this it? Is there no gain in performing more than one FFT at a time?
If the individual FFT's are large enough to fully utilize the device, there is no gain in performing more than one FFT at a time. You can still use standard methods like overlap of copy and compute to get the most performance out of the machine.
If the FFT's are small then the batched plan is a good way to get the most performance. If you go this route, I recommend using CUDA 5.5, as there have been some API improvements.
Is there any library that supports calls from the device?
cuFFT library cannot be used by making calls from device code.
There are other CUDA libraries, of course, such as ArrayFire, which may have options I'm not familiar with.
Shoud I just use cufftPlanMany() instead (as refered in "is-there-a-method-of-fft-that-will-run-inside-cuda-kernel" by hang or as referred in the previous topic, by Robert)?
Or the best option is to call mutiple host threads?
Batched plan is preferred over multiple host threads - the API can do a better job of resource management that way, and you will have more API-level visibility (such as through the resource estimation functions in CUDA 5.5) as to what is possible.
TL;DR version: "What's the best way to round-robin kernel calls to multiple GPUs with Python/PyCUDA such that CPU and GPU work can happen in parallel?" with a side of "I can't have been the first person to ask this; anything I should read up on?"
Full version:
I would like to know the best way to design context, etc. handling in an application that uses CUDA on a system with multiple GPUs. I've been trying to find literature that talks about guidelines for when context reuse vs. recreation is appropriate, but so far haven't found anything that outlines best practices, rules of thumb, etc.
The general overview of what we're needing to do is:
Requests come in to a central process.
That process forks to handle a single request.
Data is loaded from the DB (relatively expensive).
The the following is repeated an arbitrary number of times based on the request (dozens):
A few quick kernel calls to compute data that is needed for later kernels.
One slow kernel call (10 sec).
Finally:
Results from the kernel calls are collected and processed on the CPU, then stored.
At the moment, each kernel call creates and then destroys a context, which seems wasteful. Setup is taking about 0.1 sec per context and kernel load, and while that's not huge, it is precluding us from moving other quicker tasks to the GPU.
I am trying to figure out the best way to manage contexts, etc. so that we can use the machine efficiently. I think that in the single-gpu case, it's relatively simple:
Create a context before starting any of the GPU work.
Launch the kernels for the first set of data.
Record an event for after the final kernel call in the series.
Prepare the second set of data on the CPU while the first is computing on the GPU.
Launch the second set, repeat.
Insure that each event gets synchronized before collecting the results and storing them.
That seems like it should do the trick, assuming proper use of overlapped memory copies.
However, I'm unsure what I should do when wanting to round-robin each of the dozens of items to process over multiple GPUs.
The host program is Python 2.7, using PyCUDA to access the GPU. Currently it's not multi-threaded, and while I'd rather keep it that way ("now you have two problems" etc.), if the answer means threads, it means threads. Similarly, it would be nice to just be able to call event.synchronize() in the main thread when it's time to block on data, but for our needs efficient use of the hardware is more important. Since we'll potentially be servicing multiple requests at a time, letting other processes use the GPU when this process isn't using it is important.
I don't think that we have any explicit reason to use Exclusive compute modes (ie. we're not filling up the memory of the card with one work item), so I don't think that solutions that involve long-standing contexts are off the table.
Note that answers in the form of links to other content that covers my questions are completely acceptable (encouraged, even), provided they go into enough detail about the why, not just the API. Thanks for reading!
Caveat: I'm not a PyCUDA user (yet).
With CUDA 4.0+ you don't even need an explicit context per GPU. You can just call cudaSetDevice (or the PyCUDA equivalent) before doing per-device stuff (cudaMalloc, cudaMemcpy, launch kernels, etc.).
If you need to synchronize between GPUs, you will need to potentially create streams and/or events and use cudaEventSynchronize (or the PyCUDA equivalent). You can even have one stream wait on an event inserted in another stream to do sophisticated dependencies.
So I suspect the answer to day is quite a lot simpler than talonmies' excellent pre-CUDA-4.0 answer.
You might also find this answer useful.
(Re)Edit by OP: Per my understanding, PyCUDA supports versions of CUDA prior to 4.0, and so still uses the old API/semantics (the driver API?), so talonmies' answer is still relevant.