CUDA kernel launch - cuda

I am new to CUDA. I have written some simple code, which tries to copy a random initialized matrix to device memory, increments the value of each matrix entry by one, and transfer it back to the host memory.
There is no error while compiling or running the code. But, it seems that the kernel does not launch as the value of matrix entries are the same after launching the kernel.
Any idea what is happening there?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define SIZE 2
void print_matrix (int size, float *array);
void matrix_initialize(int size, float *array);
__global__ void LU(float * m, int size){
m[threadIdx.y*size + threadIdx.x] ++ ;
}
int main(){
srand(0);
//variables
float *a = new float[SIZE*SIZE];
dim3 blockdim(2,2,0);
dim3 griddim(1,0,0);
//initialize
matrix_initialize(SIZE, a);
print_matrix (SIZE, a);
//allocate space on device memory:
float * Ad;
int size = SIZE * SIZE;
cudaMalloc ((void **)&Ad, size);
//transfer data to device memory:
cudaMemcpy(Ad , a, size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//run the kernel
LU<<<griddim,blockdim>>>(Ad, SIZE);
// transfer the data back to the host memory
cudaMemcpy(a , Ad, size, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
//test if the kernel runing the kernel has changed the value
print_matrix (SIZE, a);
// free device memory :
cudaFree (Ad);
return 0;
}
void print_matrix (int size, float *array){
for (int i=0; i < size*size ; i++){
if(i % size == 0)
cout << endl;
cout << array [i] << " ";
}
}
void matrix_initialize(int size, float *array){
for (int i = 0; i< SIZE*SIZE; i++){
array[i] = rand()/(float) RAND_MAX;
}
}

Unused dimensions should be set to 1 instead of 0:
dim3 blockdim(2, 2, 1);
dim3 griddim(1, 1, 1);
Your code launches 2 x 2 x 0 = 0 blocks, 1 x 0 x 0 = 0 threads each.
Your size calculation is wrong:
int size = SIZE * SIZE * sizeof(float);
Your code does not take array element size into account.

Related

cudaMallocManaged and cudaDeviceSynchronize()

I have the following two mostly identical example codes. code1.cu use cudaMalloc and cudaMemcpy to handling device/host variable value exchange.
The code2.cu use cudaMallocManaged and thus cudaMemcpy is not needed. When cudaMallocManaged is used, I have to include cudaDeviceSynchronize() to get the correct results, while for the one with cudaMalloc, this is not needed. I would appreciate some hint on why this is happening
code2.cu
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
#include <vector>
//
using namespace std;
// Kernel function to do nested loops
__global__
void add(int max_x, int max_y, float *tot, float *x, float *y)
{
int i = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int j = blockIdx.y*blockDim.y + threadIdx.y;
if(i < max_x && j<max_y) {
atomicAdd(tot, x[i] + y[j]);
}
}
int main(void)
{
int Nx = 1<<15;
int Ny = 1<<15;
float *d_x = NULL, *d_y = NULL;
float *d_tot = NULL;
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_x, sizeof(float)*Nx);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_y, sizeof(float)*Ny);
cudaMallocManaged((void **)&d_tot, sizeof(float));
// Allocate Unified Memory – accessible from CPU or GPU
vector<float> vx;
vector<float> vy;
// initialize x and y arrays on the host
for (int i = 0; i < Nx; i++)
vx.push_back(i);
for (int i = 0; i < Ny; i++)
vy.push_back(i*10);
//
float tot = 0;
for(int i = 0; i<vx.size(); i++)
for(int j = 0; j<vy.size(); j++)
tot += vx[i] + vy[j];
cout<<"CPU: tot: "<<tot<<endl;
//
cudaMemcpy(d_x, vx.data(), vx.size()*sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(d_y, vy.data(), vy.size()*sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//
int blockSize; // The launch configurator returned block size
int minGridSize; // The minimum grid size needed to achieve the
cudaOccupancyMaxPotentialBlockSize( &minGridSize, &blockSize, add, 0, Nx+Ny);
//.. bx*by can not go beyond the blockSize, or hardware limit, which is 1024;
//.. bx*bx = blockSize && bx/by=Nx/Ny, solve the equation
int bx = sqrt(blockSize*Nx/(float)Ny);
int by = bx*Ny/(float)Nx;
dim3 blockSize_3D(bx, by);
dim3 gridSize_3D((Nx+bx-1)/bx, (Ny+by+1)/by);
cout<<"blockSize: "<<blockSize<<endl;
cout<<"bx: "<<bx<<" by: "<<by<<" gx: "<<gridSize_3D.x<<" gy: "<<gridSize_3D.y<<endl;
// calculate theoretical occupancy
int maxActiveBlocks;
cudaOccupancyMaxActiveBlocksPerMultiprocessor( &maxActiveBlocks, add, blockSize, 0);
int device;
cudaDeviceProp props;
cudaGetDevice(&device);
cudaGetDeviceProperties(&props, device);
float occupancy = (maxActiveBlocks * blockSize / props.warpSize) /
(float)(props.maxThreadsPerMultiProcessor /
props.warpSize);
printf("Launched blocks of size %d. Theoretical occupancy: %f\n",
blockSize, occupancy);
// Run kernel on 1M elements on the GPU
tot = 0;
add<<<gridSize_3D, blockSize_3D>>>(Nx, Ny, d_tot, d_x, d_y);
// Wait for GPU to finish before accessing on host
//cudaDeviceSynchronize();
tot =*d_tot;
//
//
cout<<" GPU: tot: "<<tot<<endl;
// Free memory
cudaFree(d_x);
cudaFree(d_y);
cudaFree(d_tot);
return 0;
}
code1.cu
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
#include <vector>
//
using namespace std;
// Kernel function to do nested loops
__global__
void add(int max_x, int max_y, float *tot, float *x, float *y)
{
int i = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int j = blockIdx.y*blockDim.y + threadIdx.y;
if(i < max_x && j<max_y) {
atomicAdd(tot, x[i] + y[j]);
}
}
int main(void)
{
int Nx = 1<<15;
int Ny = 1<<15;
float *d_x = NULL, *d_y = NULL;
float *d_tot = NULL;
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_x, sizeof(float)*Nx);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_y, sizeof(float)*Ny);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_tot, sizeof(float));
// Allocate Unified Memory – accessible from CPU or GPU
vector<float> vx;
vector<float> vy;
// initialize x and y arrays on the host
for (int i = 0; i < Nx; i++)
vx.push_back(i);
for (int i = 0; i < Ny; i++)
vy.push_back(i*10);
//
float tot = 0;
for(int i = 0; i<vx.size(); i++)
for(int j = 0; j<vy.size(); j++)
tot += vx[i] + vy[j];
cout<<"CPU: tot: "<<tot<<endl;
//
cudaMemcpy(d_x, vx.data(), vx.size()*sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(d_y, vy.data(), vy.size()*sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//
int blockSize; // The launch configurator returned block size
int minGridSize; // The minimum grid size needed to achieve the
cudaOccupancyMaxPotentialBlockSize( &minGridSize, &blockSize, add, 0, Nx+Ny);
//.. bx*by can not go beyond the blockSize, or hardware limit, which is 1024;
//.. bx*bx = blockSize && bx/by=Nx/Ny, solve the equation
int bx = sqrt(blockSize*Nx/(float)Ny);
int by = bx*Ny/(float)Nx;
dim3 blockSize_3D(bx, by);
dim3 gridSize_3D((Nx+bx-1)/bx, (Ny+by+1)/by);
cout<<"blockSize: "<<blockSize<<endl;
cout<<"bx: "<<bx<<" by: "<<by<<" gx: "<<gridSize_3D.x<<" gy: "<<gridSize_3D.y<<endl;
// calculate theoretical occupancy
int maxActiveBlocks;
cudaOccupancyMaxActiveBlocksPerMultiprocessor( &maxActiveBlocks, add, blockSize, 0);
int device;
cudaDeviceProp props;
cudaGetDevice(&device);
cudaGetDeviceProperties(&props, device);
float occupancy = (maxActiveBlocks * blockSize / props.warpSize) /
(float)(props.maxThreadsPerMultiProcessor /
props.warpSize);
printf("Launched blocks of size %d. Theoretical occupancy: %f\n",
blockSize, occupancy);
// Run kernel on 1M elements on the GPU
tot = 0;
add<<<gridSize_3D, blockSize_3D>>>(Nx, Ny, d_tot, d_x, d_y);
// Wait for GPU to finish before accessing on host
//cudaDeviceSynchronize();
//
cudaMemcpy(&tot, d_tot, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
//
cout<<" GPU: tot: "<<tot<<endl;
// Free memory
cudaFree(d_x);
cudaFree(d_y);
cudaFree(d_tot);
return 0;
}
//Code2.cu has the following output:
//
//CPU: tot: 8.79609e+12
//blockSize: 1024
//bx: 32 by: 32 gx: 1024 gy: 1025
//Launched blocks of size 1024. Theoretical occupancy: 1.000000
//GPU: tot: 0
After remove the comment on cudaDeviceSynchronize(),
GPU: tot: 8.79609e+12
CUDA kernel launches are asynchronous. That means that they execute independently of the CPU thread that launched them.
Because of this asynchronous launch, the CUDA kernel is not guaranteed to be finished (or even started) by the time your CPU thread code begins testing the result.
Therefore it is necessary to wait until the GPU kernel is complete, and cudaDeviceSynchronize() does exactly that. cudaMemcpy also has a synchronizing effect, so when you remove the cudaMemcpy operations, you lose that synchronization, but cudaDeviceSynchronize() restores it.

sum vectors values with cuda C++

I try to sum many vectors values using CUDA c++. I found some solution for two vectors. As you can see, just possible to add two vectors but I wanna generate vectors dynamically with the same length.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
// CUDA kernel. Each thread takes care of one element of c
__global__ void vecAdd(double *a, double *b, double *c, int n)
{
// Get our global thread ID
int id = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x+threadIdx.x;
// Make sure we do not go out of bounds
if (id < n)
c[id] = a[id] + b[id];
}
int main( int argc, char* argv[] )
{
// Size of vectors
int n = 100000;
// Host input vectors
double *h_a;
double *h_b;
//Host output vector
double *h_c;
// Device input vectors
double *d_a;
double *d_b;
//Device output vector
double *d_c;
// Size, in bytes, of each vector
size_t bytes = n*sizeof(double);
// Allocate memory for each vector on host
h_a = (double*)malloc(bytes);
h_b = (double*)malloc(bytes);
h_c = (double*)malloc(bytes);
// Allocate memory for each vector on GPU
cudaMalloc(&d_a, bytes);
cudaMalloc(&d_b, bytes);
cudaMalloc(&d_c, bytes);
int i;
// Initialize vectors on host
for( i = 0; i < n; i++ ) {
h_a[i] = sin(i)*sin(i);
h_b[i] = cos(i)*cos(i);
}
// Copy host vectors to device
cudaMemcpy( d_a, h_a, bytes, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy( d_b, h_b, bytes, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
int blockSize, gridSize;
// Number of threads in each thread block
blockSize = 1024;
// Number of thread blocks in grid
gridSize = (int)ceil((float)n/blockSize);
// Execute the kernel
vecAdd<<<gridSize, blockSize>>>(d_a, d_b, d_c, n);
// Copy array back to host
cudaMemcpy( h_c, d_c, bytes, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost );
// Sum up vector c and the print result divided by n, this should equal 1
within error
double sum = 0;
for(i=0; i<n; i++)
sum += h_c[i];
printf("final result: %f\n", sum/n);
// Release device memory
cudaFree(d_a);
cudaFree(d_b);
cudaFree(d_c);
// Release host memory
free(h_a);
free(h_b);
free(h_c);
return 0;
}
Is there a way to do this for many vectors? My vectors size are:
#vector length
N = 1000
#number of vectors
i = 300000
v[i] = [1,2,..., N]
As result i need to get:
out[i]= [sum(v[1]), sum(v[2]),..., sum(v[i])]
Thanks for any advice.
Summing multiple vectors together in a fashion similar to the code you have shown (i.e. generating elementwise sums) is equivalent to summing the columns of a matrix. And this idea represents a sensible way to realize the solution.
We will treat your vectors as a matrix, where each vector is a row in the matrix. The CUDA kernel will assign one thread to each column, and will sum the elements of that column, producing a single number result. That single number result will become one element of the vector result of the entire problem.
Here is a fully worked example demonstrating one possible approach:
$ cat t2.cu
#include <iostream>
typedef double mt;
const int nTPB = 64;
template <typename T>
__global__ void column_sum(T *matrix, T *sums, unsigned n_vectors, unsigned vector_length){
unsigned idx = threadIdx.x+blockDim.x*blockIdx.x;
if (idx < vector_length){
T temp = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < n_vectors; i++)
temp += matrix[i*vector_length+idx];
sums[idx] = temp;}
}
int main(){
const unsigned vlen = 1000;
const unsigned nvec = 300000;
mt *h_matrix, *d_matrix, *h_sums, *d_sums;
// create the desired number of vectors as a single matrix
h_sums = new mt[vlen];
h_matrix = new mt[vlen*nvec];
cudaMalloc(&d_matrix, vlen*nvec*sizeof(mt));
cudaMalloc(&d_sums, vlen*sizeof(mt));
size_t count = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < nvec; i++)
for (unsigned j = 0; j < vlen; j++)
h_matrix[count++] = j;
cudaMemcpy(d_matrix, h_matrix, vlen*nvec*sizeof(mt), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
column_sum<<<(vlen+nTPB-1)/nTPB,nTPB>>>(d_matrix, d_sums, nvec, vlen);
cudaMemcpy(h_sums, d_sums, vlen*sizeof(mt), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < vlen; i++) if (h_sums[i] != ((mt)nvec)*i) {std::cout << " mismatch at " << i << " was: " << h_sums[i] << " should be: " << ((mt)nvec)*i << std::endl; return -1;}
std::cout << cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError()) << std::endl;
}
$ nvcc -o t2 t2.cu
$ cuda-memcheck ./t2
========= CUDA-MEMCHECK
no error
========= ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors
$
Note that this methodology only creates as many threads on the GPU as there are vector elements (1000 in the above example). 1000 threads would be enough to keep only the smallest GPUs busy. However this algorithm will be efficient on most GPUs if your vector length is 10,000 or longer. If you'd like to explore creating more efficient algorithms for small problem sizes, you can study the idea of a classical parallel reduction.

cuda display driver stppoed [duplicate]

My monte carlo pi calculation CUDA program is causing my nvidia driver to crash when I exceed around 500 trials and 256 full blocks. It seems to be happening in the monteCarlo kernel function.Any help is appreciated.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <cuda.h>
#include <curand.h>
#include <curand_kernel.h>
#define NUM_THREAD 256
#define NUM_BLOCK 256
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Function to sum an array
__global__ void reduce0(float *g_odata) {
extern __shared__ int sdata[];
// each thread loads one element from global to shared mem
unsigned int tid = threadIdx.x;
unsigned int i = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
sdata[tid] = g_odata[i];
__syncthreads();
// do reduction in shared mem
for (unsigned int s=1; s < blockDim.x; s *= 2) { // step = s x 2
if (tid % (2*s) == 0) { // only threadIDs divisible by the step participate
sdata[tid] += sdata[tid + s];
}
__syncthreads();
}
// write result for this block to global mem
if (tid == 0) g_odata[blockIdx.x] = sdata[0];
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
__global__ void monteCarlo(float *g_odata, int trials, curandState *states){
// unsigned int tid = threadIdx.x;
unsigned int i = blockIdx.x*blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
unsigned int incircle, k;
float x, y, z;
incircle = 0;
curand_init(1234, i, 0, &states[i]);
for(k = 0; k < trials; k++){
x = curand_uniform(&states[i]);
y = curand_uniform(&states[i]);
z =(x*x + y*y);
if (z <= 1.0f) incircle++;
}
__syncthreads();
g_odata[i] = incircle;
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int main() {
float* solution = (float*)calloc(100, sizeof(float));
float *sumDev, *sumHost, total;
const char *error;
int trials;
curandState *devStates;
trials = 500;
total = trials*NUM_THREAD*NUM_BLOCK;
dim3 dimGrid(NUM_BLOCK,1,1); // Grid dimensions
dim3 dimBlock(NUM_THREAD,1,1); // Block dimensions
size_t size = NUM_BLOCK*NUM_THREAD*sizeof(float); //Array memory size
sumHost = (float*)calloc(NUM_BLOCK*NUM_THREAD, sizeof(float));
cudaMalloc((void **) &sumDev, size); // Allocate array on device
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
cudaMalloc((void **) &devStates, (NUM_THREAD*NUM_BLOCK)*sizeof(curandState));
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
// Do calculation on device by calling CUDA kernel
monteCarlo <<<dimGrid, dimBlock>>> (sumDev, trials, devStates);
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
// call reduction function to sum
reduce0 <<<dimGrid, dimBlock, (NUM_THREAD*sizeof(float))>>> (sumDev);
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
dim3 dimGrid1(1,1,1);
dim3 dimBlock1(256,1,1);
reduce0 <<<dimGrid1, dimBlock1, (NUM_THREAD*sizeof(float))>>> (sumDev);
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
// Retrieve result from device and store it in host array
cudaMemcpy(sumHost, sumDev, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
error = cudaGetErrorString(cudaGetLastError());
printf("%s\n", error);
*solution = 4*(sumHost[0]/total);
printf("%.*f\n", 1000, *solution);
free (solution);
free(sumHost);
cudaFree(sumDev);
cudaFree(devStates);
//*solution = NULL;
return 0;
}
If smaller numbers of trials work correctly, and if you are running on MS Windows without the NVIDIA Tesla Compute Cluster (TCC) driver and/or the GPU you are using is attached to a display, then you are probably exceeding the operating system's "watchdog" timeout. If the kernel occupies the display device (or any GPU on Windows without TCC) for too long, the OS will kill the kernel so that the system does not become non-interactive.
The solution is to run on a non-display-attached GPU and if you are on Windows, use the TCC driver. Otherwise, you will need to reduce the number of trials in your kernel and run the kernel multiple times to compute the number of trials you need.
EDIT: According to the CUDA 4.0 curand docs(page 15, "Performance Notes"), you can improve performance by copying the state for a generator to local storage inside your kernel, then storing the state back (if you need it again) when you are finished:
curandState state = states[i];
for(k = 0; k < trials; k++){
x = curand_uniform(&state);
y = curand_uniform(&state);
z =(x*x + y*y);
if (z <= 1.0f) incircle++;
}
Next, it mentions that setup is expensive, and suggests that you move curand_init into a separate kernel. This may help keep the cost of your MC kernel down so you don't run up against the watchdog.
I recommend reading that section of the docs, there are several useful guidelines.
For those of you having a geforce GPU which does not support TCC driver there is another solution based on:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff569918(v=vs.85).aspx
start regedit,
navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\GraphicsDrivers
create new DWORD key called TdrLevel, set value to 0,
restart PC.
Now your long-running kernels should not be terminated. This answer is based on:
Modifying registry to increase GPU timeout, windows 7
I just thought it might be useful to provide the solution here as well.

loop unrolling with dynamic parallelism decrease the time performance

I have a simple program to calculate square root, loop unrolling was done as
loop unrolling
#include <stdio.h>
#include <cuda.h>
__global__ void square(float *a, int N,int idx);
// Kernel that executes on the CUDA device
__global__ void first(float *arr, int N)
{
int idx = 2*(blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x);
int n=N;
//printf("%d\n",n);
for(int q=0;q<2;q++)
{
if(N<2000)
{
arr[idx+q] = arr[idx+q] * arr[idx+q];
}
}
}
// main routine that executes on the host
int main(void)
{
clock_t start = clock(),diff;
float *a_h, *a_d; // Pointer to host & device arrays
const int N = 1000; // Number of elements in arrays
size_t size = N * sizeof(float);
a_h = (float *)malloc(size); // Allocate array on host
cudaMalloc((void **) &a_d, size); // Allocate array on device
// Initialize host array and copy it to CUDA device
for (int i=0; i<N; i++) a_h[i] = (float)i;
cudaMemcpy(a_d, a_h, size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
// Do calculation on device:
int block_size = 4;
//int n_blocks = N/block_size + (N%block_size == 0 ? 0:1);
first <<< 4, 128 >>> (a_d, N);
//cudaThreadSynchronize();
// Retrieve result from device and store it in host array
cudaMemcpy(a_h, a_d, sizeof(float)*N, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
// Print results
for (int i=0; i<N; i++) printf("%d %f\n", i, a_h[i]);
// Cleanup
free(a_h); cudaFree(a_d);
diff = clock() - start;
int msec = diff * 1000 / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Time taken %d seconds %d milliseconds\n", msec/1000, msec%1000);
}
then realizing that the loop calculation can be minimized with dynamic parallelism .
unrolling with dynamic parallelism was implemented as
unrolling with dynamic parallelism
#include <stdio.h>
#include <cuda.h>
__global__ void square(float *a, int N,int idx);
// Kernel that executes on the CUDA device
__global__ void first(float *arr, int N)
{
int idx = 2*(blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x);
int n=N;
square <<< 1,2 >>> (arr, n,idx);
}
__global__ void square(float *a, int N,int idx)
{
int tdx = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
printf("%d\n",N);
if(N<2000)
{
a[tdx+idx] = a[tdx+idx] * a[tdx+idx];
}
}
// main routine that executes on the host
int main(void)
{
clock_t start = clock(),diff;
float *a_h, *a_d; // Pointer to host & device arrays
const int N = 1000; // Number of elements in arrays
size_t size = N * sizeof(float);
a_h = (float *)malloc(size); // Allocate array on host
cudaMalloc((void **) &a_d, size); // Allocate array on device
// Initialize host array and copy it to CUDA device
for (int i=0; i<N; i++) a_h[i] = (float)i;
cudaMemcpy(a_d, a_h, size, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
// Do calculation on device:
int block_size = 4;
//int n_blocks = N/block_size + (N%block_size == 0 ? 0:1);
first <<< 4, 128 >>> (a_d, N);
//cudaThreadSynchronize();
// Retrieve result from device and store it in host array
cudaMemcpy(a_h, a_d, sizeof(float)*N, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
// Print results
for (int i=0; i<N; i++) printf("%d %f\n", i, a_h[i]);
// Cleanup
free(a_h); cudaFree(a_d);
diff = clock() - start;
int msec = diff * 1000 / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Time taken %d seconds %d milliseconds\n", msec/1000, msec%1000);
}
the implementation of dynamic parallelism with unrolling takes more time for executio than only unrolling. Aren,t we suppose to improve execution time with dynamic parallelism in such case?
Dynamic parallelism is mainly useful in cases where you have parallelism that is dynamic. That is: cases where you don't know how much parallelism you're going to need until you've done some calculation. Rather than transfer data back to the host which is then instantly fed into parameterising another launch, you launch from within the kernel. In this pattern, with memcpys between kernel launches avoided, you'll see speedup.
In your example above this is not the case. You could have just launched twice as many threads from the host. There's nothing dynamic required as there's no parallelism available there that you didn't know about at the time of the first kernel launch.
Furthermore, performance requirements for kernels launched using dynamic parallelism are similar to that of those launched from the host. You have to launch a reasonable amount of work or the launch latency will dominate your computation time.

What is difference between float and double types in cuda programming?

I am new in cuda programming. In my program (Matrix multiplication using shared memory) I defined block_size=20 and when matrices are 1200*1200 the program works with double elements but it does not work with float elements (when elements are float it works with 840*840 matrices). My question is that why it happens , although we know float type is smaller than double?
// Matrices are stored in row-major order:
// M(row, col) = *(M.elements + row * M.stride + col)
#include <stdio.h>
#define BLOCK_SIZE 20
typedef struct {
int width;
int height;
int stride;
float* elements;
} Matrix;
// Get a matrix element
__device__ float GetElement(const Matrix A, int row, int col)
{
return A.elements[row * A.stride + col];
}
// Set a matrix element
__device__ void SetElement(Matrix A, int row, int col,
float value)
{
A.elements[row * A.stride + col] = value;
}
// Get the BLOCK_SIZExBLOCK_SIZE sub-matrix Asub of A that is
// located col sub-matrices to the right and row sub-matrices down
// from the upper-left corner of A
__device__ Matrix GetSubMatrix(Matrix A, int row, int col)
{
Matrix Asub;
Asub.width = BLOCK_SIZE;
Asub.height = BLOCK_SIZE;
Asub.stride = A.stride;
Asub.elements = &A.elements[A.stride * BLOCK_SIZE * row+ BLOCK_SIZE * col];
return Asub;
}
// Thread block size
// Forward declaration of the matrix multiplication kernel
__global__ void MatMulKernel(const Matrix, const Matrix, Matrix);
// Matrix multiplication - Host code
// Matrix dimensions are assumed to be multiples of BLOCK_SIZE
void MatMul(const Matrix A, const Matrix B, Matrix C)
{
// Load A and B to device memory
Matrix d_A;
d_A.width = d_A.stride = A.width; d_A.height = A.height;
siz e_t size = A.width * A.height * sizeof(float);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_A.elements, size);
cudaMemcpy(d_A.elements, A.elements, size,
cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
Matrix d_B;
d_B.width = d_B.stride = B.width; d_B.height = B.height;
size = B.width * B.height * sizeof(float);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_B.elements, size);
cudaMemcpy(d_B.elements, B.elements, size,
cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
// Allocate C in device memory
Matrix d_C;
d_C.width = d_C.stride = C.width; d_C.height = C.height;
size = C.width * C.height * sizeof(float);
cudaMalloc((void **)&d_C.elements, size);
// Invoke kernel
dim3 dimBlock(BLOCK_SIZE,BLOCK_SIZE);
//dim3 dimBlock(C.height, C.width);
//dim3 dimGrid(B.width / dimBlock.x, A.height / dimBlock.y);
dim3 dimGrid((B.width+dimBlock.x-1) / dimBlock.x, (A.height+dimBlock.y-1) /dimBlock.y);
MatMulKernel<<<dimGrid, dimBlock>>>(d_A, d_B, d_C);
// Read C from device memory
cudaMemcpy(C.elements, d_C.elements, size,
cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
// Free device memory
cudaFree(d_A.elements);
cudaFree(d_B.elements);
cudaFree(d_C.elements);
}
// Matrix multiplication kernel called by MatMul()
__global__ void MatMulKernel(Matrix A, Matrix B, Matrix C)
{
// Block row and column
int blockRow = blockIdx.y;
int blockCol = blockIdx.x;
// Each thread block computes one sub-matrix Csub of C
Matrix Csub = GetSubMatrix(C, blockRow, blockCol);
// Each thread computes one element of Csub
// by accumulating results into Cvalue
float Cvalue = 0;
// Thread row and column within Csub
int row = threadIdx.y;
int col = threadIdx.x;
// Loop over all the sub-matrices of A and B that are
// required to compute Csub
// Multiply each pair of sub-matrices together
// and accumulate the results
for (int m = 0; m < (A.width / BLOCK_SIZE); ++m) {
// Get sub-matrix Asub of A
Matrix Asub = GetSubMatrix(A, blockRow, m);
// Get sub-matrix Bsub of B
Matrix Bsub = GetSubMatrix(B, m, blockCol);
// Shared memory used to store Asub and Bsub respectively
__shared__ float As[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
__shared__ float Bs[BLOCK_SIZE][BLOCK_SIZE];
// Load Asub and Bsub from device memory to shared memory
// Each thread loads one element of each sub-matrix
As[row][col] = GetElement(Asub, row, col);
Bs[row][col] = GetElement(Bsub, row, col);
// Synchronize to make sure the sub-matrices are loaded
// before starting the computation
__syncthreads();
// Multiply Asub and Bsub together
for (int e = 0; e < BLOCK_SIZE; ++e)
Cvalue += As[row][e] * Bs[e][col];
// Synchronize to make sure that the preceding
// computation is done before loading two new
// sub-matrices of A and B in the next iteration
__syncthreads();
}
// Write Csub to device memory
// Each thread writes one element
SetElement(Csub, row, col, Cvalue);
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// print_matrix function ///////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void print_matrix(float *c,int row,int col){
for (int i = 0; i < row; ++i){
for (int j = 0; j < col; ++j)
printf("%f ",c[col*i +j]);
printf("\n\n");
}
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// random_init function ///////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void random_init(float *a,int size){
for(int i=0;i<size;i++)
a[i]=rand()%10;
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int main(void){
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////\|/
cudaEvent_t start,stop;
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////|\
Matrix A,B,C;
A.width=1200;
A.height=1200;/////
B.width=1200;/////
B.height=1200;
C.width=B.width;
C.height=A.height;
size_t size = A.width * A.height * sizeof(float);
A.elements = (float *)malloc(size);
//random_init(A.elements,A.width * A.height );
size = B.width * B.height * sizeof(float);
B.elements= (float *)malloc(size);
//random_init(B.elements,B.width * B.height);
size = C.width * C.height * sizeof(float);
C.elements= (float *)malloc(size);
for(int i=0;i<A.width*A.height;i++)
A.elements[i]=1;
for(int i=0;i<B.width*B.height;i++)
B.elements[i]=1;
printf("matrix A(%d,%d) & matrix B(%d,%d) & matrix C(%d,%d)\n",A.width,A.height,B.width,
B.height,C.width,C.height);
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////\|/
cudaEventCreate(&start);
cudaEventCreate(&stop);
cudaEventRecord(start,0);
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////|\
MatMul(A,B,C);
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////\|/
cudaEventRecord(stop,0);
cudaEventSynchronize(stop);
float elapsedTime;
cudaEventElapsedTime(&elapsedTime,start,stop);
printf("Time to genreat : %3.5f ms\n",elapsedTime);
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////|\
printf("\nC\n");
//print_matrix(C.elements,C.height,C.width);
printf("C[%d]=%f\n",0,C.elements[0]);
printf("C[%d]=%f\n",C.width -1,C.elements[C.width-1]);
printf("C[%d]=%f\n",(C.width * C.height)-1,C.elements[(C.width * C.height)-1]);
getchar();
return(0);
}
The following message:
"“display driver stopped responding and has recovered”"
is an indication that you have run into a windows TDR event.
Under windows, kernels that take too long to execute will cause the windows display watchdog timer to reset the display device, which will cause CUDA code execution to be terminated. Kernels that require more than about 2 seconds to execute may run into this.
If you search on "windows TDR" you will find other descriptions and possible methods to work around this. You might also investigate why your code is taking longer to execute after you make the changes.