Polymorphism and derived classes in CUDA / CUDA Thrust - cuda

This is my first question on Stack Overflow, and it's quite a long question. The tl;dr version is: How do I work with a thrust::device_vector<BaseClass> if I want it to store objects of different types DerivedClass1, DerivedClass2, etc, simultaneously?
I want to take advantage of polymorphism with CUDA Thrust. I'm compiling for an -arch=sm_30 GPU (GeForce GTX 670).
Let us take a look at the following problem: Suppose there are 80 families in town. 60 of them are married couples, 20 of them are single-parent households. Each family has, therefore, a different number of members. It's census time and households have to state the parents' ages and the number of children they have. Therefore, an array of Family objects is constructed by the government, namely thrust::device_vector<Family> familiesInTown(80), such that information of families familiesInTown[0] to familiesInTown[59] corresponds to married couples, the rest (familiesInTown[60] to familiesInTown[79]) being single-parent households.
Family is the base class - the number of parents in the household (1 for single parents and 2 for couples) and the number of children they have are stored here as members.
SingleParent, derived from Family, includes a new member - the single parent's age, unsigned int ageOfParent.
MarriedCouple, also derived from Family, however, introduces two new members - both parents' ages, unsigned int ageOfParent1 and unsigned int ageOfParent2.
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
class Family
{
protected:
unsigned int numParents;
unsigned int numChildren;
public:
__host__ __device__ Family() {};
__host__ __device__ Family(const unsigned int& nPars, const unsigned int& nChil) : numParents(nPars), numChildren(nChil) {};
__host__ __device__ virtual ~Family() {};
__host__ __device__ unsigned int showNumOfParents() {return numParents;}
__host__ __device__ unsigned int showNumOfChildren() {return numChildren;}
};
class SingleParent : public Family
{
protected:
unsigned int ageOfParent;
public:
__host__ __device__ SingleParent() {};
__host__ __device__ SingleParent(const unsigned int& nChil, const unsigned int& age) : Family(1, nChil), ageOfParent(age) {};
__host__ __device__ unsigned int showAgeOfParent() {return ageOfParent;}
};
class MarriedCouple : public Family
{
protected:
unsigned int ageOfParent1;
unsigned int ageOfParent2;
public:
__host__ __device__ MarriedCouple() {};
__host__ __device__ MarriedCouple(const unsigned int& nChil, const unsigned int& age1, const unsigned int& age2) : Family(2, nChil), ageOfParent1(age1), ageOfParent2(age2) {};
__host__ __device__ unsigned int showAgeOfParent1() {return ageOfParent1;}
__host__ __device__ unsigned int showAgeOfParent2() {return ageOfParent2;}
};
If I were to naïvely initiate the objects in my thrust::device_vector<Family> with the following functors:
struct initSlicedCouples : public thrust::unary_function<unsigned int, MarriedCouple>
{
__device__ MarriedCouple operator()(const unsigned int& idx) const
// I use a thrust::counting_iterator to get idx
{
return MarriedCouple(idx % 3, 20 + idx, 19 + idx);
// Couple 0: Ages 20 and 19, no children
// Couple 1: Ages 21 and 20, 1 child
// Couple 2: Ages 22 and 21, 2 children
// Couple 3: Ages 23 and 22, no children
// etc
}
};
struct initSlicedSingles : public thrust::unary_function<unsigned int, SingleParent>
{
__device__ SingleParent operator()(const unsigned int& idx) const
{
return SingleParent(idx % 3, 25 + idx);
}
};
int main()
{
unsigned int Num_couples = 60;
unsigned int Num_single_parents = 20;
thrust::device_vector<Family> familiesInTown(Num_couples + Num_single_parents);
// Families [0] to [59] are couples. Families [60] to [79] are single-parent households.
thrust::transform(thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(0),
thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples),
familiesInTown.begin(),
initSlicedCouples());
thrust::transform(thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples),
thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples + Num_single_parents),
familiesInTown.begin() + Num_couples,
initSlicedSingles());
return 0;
}
I would definitely be guilty of some classic object slicing...
So, I asked myself, what about a vector of pointers that may give me some sweet polymorphism? Smart pointers in C++ are a thing, and thrust iterators can do some really impressive things, so let's give it a shot, I figured. The following code compiles.
struct initCouples : public thrust::unary_function<unsigned int, MarriedCouple*>
{
__device__ MarriedCouple* operator()(const unsigned int& idx) const
{
return new MarriedCouple(idx % 3, 20 + idx, 19 + idx); // Memory issues?
}
};
struct initSingles : public thrust::unary_function<unsigned int, SingleParent*>
{
__device__ SingleParent* operator()(const unsigned int& idx) const
{
return new SingleParent(idx % 3, 25 + idx);
}
};
int main()
{
unsigned int Num_couples = 60;
unsigned int Num_single_parents = 20;
thrust::device_vector<Family*> familiesInTown(Num_couples + Num_single_parents);
// Families [0] to [59] are couples. Families [60] to [79] are single-parent households.
thrust::transform(thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(0),
thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples),
familiesInTown.begin(),
initCouples());
thrust::transform(thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples),
thrust::counting_iterator<unsigned int>(Num_couples + Num_single_parents),
familiesInTown.begin() + Num_couples,
initSingles());
Family A = *(familiesInTown[2]); // Compiles, but object slicing takes place (in theory)
std::cout << A.showNumOfParents() << "\n"; // Segmentation fault
return 0;
}
Seems like I've hit a wall here. Am I understanding memory management correctly? (VTables, etc). Are my objects being instantiated and populated on the device? Am I leaking memory like there is no tomorrow?
For what it's worth, in order to avoid object slicing, I tried with a dynamic_cast<DerivedPointer*>(basePointer). That's why I made my Family destructor virtual.
Family *pA = familiesInTown[2];
MarriedCouple *pB = dynamic_cast<MarriedCouple*>(pA);
The following lines compile, but, unfortunately, a segfault is thrown again. CUDA-Memcheck won't tell me why.
std::cout << "Ages " << (pB -> showAgeOfParent1()) << ", " << (pB -> showAgeOfParent2()) << "\n";
and
MarriedCouple B = *pB;
std::cout << "Ages " << B.showAgeOfParent1() << ", " << B.showAgeOfParent2() << "\n";
In short, what I need is a class interface for objects that will have different properties, with different numbers of members among each other, but that I can store in one common vector (that's why I want a base class) that I can manipulate on the GPU. My intention is to work with them both in thrust transformations and in CUDA kernels via thrust::raw_pointer_casting, which has worked flawlessly for me until I've needed to branch out my classes into a base one and several derived ones. What is the standard procedure for that?
Thanks in advance!

I am not going to attempt to answer everything in this question, it is just too large. Having said that here are some observations about the code you posted which might help:
The GPU side new operator allocates memory from a private runtime heap. As of CUDA 6, that memory cannot be accessed by the host side CUDA APIs. You can access the memory from within kernels and device functions, but that memory cannot be accessed by the host. So using new inside a thrust device functor is a broken design that can never work. That is why your "vector of pointers" model fails.
Thrust is fundamentally intended to allow data parallel versions of typical STL algorithms to be applied to POD types. Building a codebase using complex polymorphic objects and trying to cram those through Thrust containers and algorithms might be made to work, but it isn't what Thrust was designed for, and I wouldn't recommend it. Don't be surprised if you break thrust in unexpected ways if you do.
CUDA supports a lot of C++ features, but the compilation and object models are much simpler than even the C++98 standard upon which they are based. CUDA lacks several key features (RTTI for example) which make complex polymorphic object designs workable in C++. My suggestion is use C++ features sparingly. Just because you can do something in CUDA doesn't mean you should. The GPU is a simple architecture and simple data structures and code are almost always more performant than functionally similar complex objects.
Having skim read the code you posted, my overall recommendation is to go back to the drawing board. If you want to look at some very elegant CUDA/C++ designs, spend some time reading the code bases of CUB and CUSP. They are both very different, but there is a lot to learn from both (and CUSP is built on top of Thrust, which makes it even more relevant to your usage case, I suspect).

I completely agree with #talonmies answer. (e.g. I don't know that thrust has been extensively tested with polymorphism.) Furthermore, I have not fully parsed your code. I post this answer to add additional info, in particular that I believe some level of polymorphism can be made to work with thrust.
A key observation I would make is that it is not allowed to pass as an argument to a __global__ function an object of a class with virtual functions. This means that polymorphic objects created on the host cannot be passed to the device (via thrust, or in ordinary CUDA C++). (One basis for this limitation is the requirement for virtual function tables in the objects, which will necessarily be different between host and device, coupled with the fact that it is illegal to directly take the address of a device function in host code).
However, polymorphism can work in device code, including thrust device functions.
The following example demonstrates this idea, restricting ourselves to objects created on the device although we can certainly initialize them with host data. I have created two classes, Triangle and Rectangle, derived from a base class Polygon which includes a virtual function area. Triangle and Rectangle inherit the function set_values from the base class but replace the virtual area function.
We can then manipulate objects of those classes polymorphically as demonstrated here:
#include <iostream>
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <thrust/for_each.h>
#include <thrust/sequence.h>
#include <thrust/iterator/zip_iterator.h>
#include <thrust/copy.h>
#define N 4
class Polygon {
protected:
int width, height;
public:
__host__ __device__ void set_values (int a, int b)
{ width=a; height=b; }
__host__ __device__ virtual int area ()
{ return 0; }
};
class Rectangle: public Polygon {
public:
__host__ __device__ int area ()
{ return width * height; }
};
class Triangle: public Polygon {
public:
__host__ __device__ int area ()
{ return (width * height / 2); }
};
struct init_f {
template <typename Tuple>
__host__ __device__ void operator()(const Tuple &arg) {
(thrust::get<0>(arg)).set_values(thrust::get<1>(arg), thrust::get<2>(arg));}
};
struct setup_f {
template <typename Tuple>
__host__ __device__ void operator()(const Tuple &arg) {
if (thrust::get<0>(arg) == 0)
thrust::get<1>(arg) = &(thrust::get<2>(arg));
else
thrust::get<1>(arg) = &(thrust::get<3>(arg));}
};
struct area_f {
template <typename Tuple>
__host__ __device__ void operator()(const Tuple &arg) {
thrust::get<1>(arg) = (thrust::get<0>(arg))->area();}
};
int main () {
thrust::device_vector<int> widths(N);
thrust::device_vector<int> heights(N);
thrust::sequence( widths.begin(), widths.end(), 2);
thrust::sequence(heights.begin(), heights.end(), 3);
thrust::device_vector<Rectangle> rects(N);
thrust::device_vector<Triangle> trgls(N);
thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(rects.begin(), widths.begin(), heights.begin())), thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(rects.end(), widths.end(), heights.end())), init_f());
thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(trgls.begin(), widths.begin(), heights.begin())), thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(trgls.end(), widths.end(), heights.end())), init_f());
thrust::device_vector<Polygon *> polys(N);
thrust::device_vector<int> selector(N);
for (int i = 0; i<N; i++) selector[i] = i%2;
thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(selector.begin(), polys.begin(), rects.begin(), trgls.begin())), thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(selector.end(), polys.end(), rects.end(), trgls.end())), setup_f());
thrust::device_vector<int> areas(N);
thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(polys.begin(), areas.begin())), thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(polys.end(), areas.end())), area_f());
thrust::copy(areas.begin(), areas.end(), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, "\n"));
return 0;
}
I suggest compiling the above code for a cc2.0 or newer architecture. I tested with CUDA 6 on RHEL 5.5.
(The polymorphic example idea, and some of the code, was taken from here.)

Related

How to bring equal elements together using thrust without sort

I have an array of elements such that each element defines the "equal to" operator only.
In other words no ordering is defined for such type of element.
Since I can't use thrust::sort as in the thrust histogram example how can I bring equal elements together using thrust?
For example:
my array is initially
a e t b c a c e t a
where identical characters represent equal elements.
After the elaboration, the array should be
a a a t t b c c e e
but it can be also
a a a c c t t e e b
or any other permutation.
I would recommend that you follow an approach such as that laid out by #m.s. in the posted answer there. As I stated in the comments, ordering of elements is an extremely useful mechanism that aids in the reduction of complexity for problems like this.
However the question as posed asks if it is possible to group like elements without sorting. With an inherently parallel processor like a GPU, I spent some time thinking about how it might be accomplished without sorting.
If we have both a large number of objects, as well as a large number of unique object types, then I think it's possible to bring some level of parallelism to the problem, however my approach outlined here will still have atrocious, scattered memory access patterns. For the case where there are only a small number of distinct or unique object types, the algorithm I am discussing here has little to commend it. This is just one possible approach. There may well be other, far better approaches:
The starting point is to develop a set of "linked lists" that indicate the matching neighbor to the left and the matching neighbor to the right, for each element. This is accomplished via my search_functor and thrust::for_each, on the entire data set. This step is reasonably parallel and also has reasonable memory access efficiency for large data sets, but it does require a worst-case traversal of the entire data set from start to finish (a side-effect, I would call it, of not being able to use ordering; we must compare every element to other elements until we find a match). The generation of two linked lists allows us to avoid all-to-all comparisons.
Once we have the lists (right-neighbor and left-neighbor) built from step 1, it's an easy matter to count the number of unique objects, using thrust::count.
We then get the starting indexes of each unique element (i.e. the leftmost index of each type of unique element, in the dataset), using thrust::copy_if stream compaction.
The next step is to count the number of instances of each of the unique elements. This step is doing list traversal, one thread per element list. If I have a small number of unique elements, this will not effectively utilize the GPU. In addition, the list traversal will result in lousy access patterns.
After we have counted the number of each type of object, we can then build a sequence of starting indices for each object type in the output list, via thrust::exclusive_scan on the numbers of each type of object.
Finally, we can copy each input element to it's appropriate place in the output list. Since we have no way to group or order the elements yet, we must again resort to list traversal. Once again, this will be inefficient use of the GPU if the number of unique object types is small, and will also have lousy memory access patterns.
Here's a fully worked example, using your sample data set of characters. To help clarify the idea that we intend to group objects that have no inherent ordering, I have created a somewhat arbitrary object definition (my_obj), that has the == comparison operator defined, but no definition for < or >.
$ cat t707.cu
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <thrust/host_vector.h>
#include <thrust/for_each.h>
#include <thrust/transform.h>
#include <thrust/transform_scan.h>
#include <thrust/iterator/counting_iterator.h>
#include <thrust/iterator/zip_iterator.h>
#include <thrust/copy.h>
#include <thrust/count.h>
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class my_obj
{
T element;
int index;
public:
__host__ __device__ my_obj() : element(0), index(0) {};
__host__ __device__ my_obj(T a) : element(a), index(0) {};
__host__ __device__ my_obj(T a, int idx) : element(a), index(idx) {};
__host__ __device__
T get() {
return element;}
__host__ __device__
void set(T a) {
element = a;}
__host__ __device__
int get_idx() {
return index;}
__host__ __device__
void set_idx(int idx) {
index = idx;}
__host__ __device__
bool operator ==(my_obj &e2)
{
return (e2.get() == this->get());
}
};
template <typename T>
struct search_functor
{
my_obj<T> *data;
int end;
int *rn;
int *ln;
search_functor(my_obj<T> *_a, int *_rn, int *_ln, int len) : data(_a), rn(_rn), ln(_ln), end(len) {};
__host__ __device__
void operator()(int idx){
for (int i = idx+1; i < end; i++)
if (data[idx] == data[i]) {
ln[i] = idx;
rn[idx] = i;
return;}
return;
}
};
template <typename T>
struct copy_functor
{
my_obj<T> *data;
my_obj<T> *result;
int *rn;
copy_functor(my_obj<T> *_in, my_obj<T> *_out, int *_rn) : data(_in), result(_out), rn(_rn) {};
__host__ __device__
void operator()(const thrust::tuple<int, int> &t1) const {
int idx1 = thrust::get<0>(t1);
int idx2 = thrust::get<1>(t1);
result[idx1] = data[idx2];
int i = rn[idx2];
int j = 1;
while (i != -1){
result[idx1+(j++)] = data[i];
i = rn[i];}
return;
}
};
struct count_functor
{
int *rn;
int *ot;
count_functor(int *_rn, int *_ot) : rn(_rn), ot(_ot) {};
__host__ __device__
int operator()(int idx1, int idx2){
ot[idx1] = idx2;
int i = rn[idx1];
int count = 1;
while (i != -1) {
ot[i] = idx2;
count++;
i = rn[i];}
return count;
}
};
using namespace thrust::placeholders;
int main(){
// data setup
char data[] = { 'a' , 'e' , 't' , 'b' , 'c' , 'a' , 'c' , 'e' , 't' , 'a' };
int sz = sizeof(data)/sizeof(char);
for (int i = 0; i < sz; i++) std::cout << data[i] << ",";
std::cout << std::endl;
thrust::host_vector<my_obj<char> > h_data(sz);
for (int i = 0; i < sz; i++) { h_data[i].set(data[i]); h_data[i].set_idx(i); }
thrust::device_vector<my_obj<char> > d_data = h_data;
// create left and right neighbor indices
thrust::device_vector<int> ln(d_data.size(), -1);
thrust::device_vector<int> rn(d_data.size(), -1);
thrust::for_each(thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0), thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0) + sz, search_functor<char>(thrust::raw_pointer_cast(d_data.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(rn.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(ln.data()), d_data.size()));
// determine number of unique objects
int uni_objs = thrust::count(ln.begin(), ln.end(), -1);
// determine the number of instances of each unique object
// get object starting indices
thrust::device_vector<int> uni_obj_idxs(uni_objs);
thrust::copy_if(thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0), thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0)+d_data.size(), ln.begin(), uni_obj_idxs.begin(), (_1 == -1));
// count each object list
thrust::device_vector<int> num_objs(uni_objs);
thrust::device_vector<int> obj_type(d_data.size());
thrust::transform(uni_obj_idxs.begin(), uni_obj_idxs.end(), thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0), num_objs.begin(), count_functor(thrust::raw_pointer_cast(rn.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(obj_type.data())));
// at this point, we have built object lists that have allowed us to identify a unique, orderable "type" for each object
// the sensible thing to do would be to employ a sort_by_key on obj_type and an index sequence at this point
// and use the reordered index sequence to reorder the original objects, thus grouping them
// however... without sorting...
// build output vector indices
thrust::device_vector<int> copy_start(num_objs.size());
thrust::exclusive_scan(num_objs.begin(), num_objs.end(), copy_start.begin());
// copy (by object type) input to output
thrust::device_vector<my_obj<char> > d_result(d_data.size());
thrust::for_each(thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(copy_start.begin(), uni_obj_idxs.begin())), thrust::make_zip_iterator(thrust::make_tuple(copy_start.end(), uni_obj_idxs.end())), copy_functor<char>(thrust::raw_pointer_cast(d_data.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(d_result.data()), thrust::raw_pointer_cast(rn.data())));
// display results
std::cout << "Grouped: " << std::endl;
for (int i = 0; i < d_data.size(); i++){
my_obj<char> temp = d_result[i];
std::cout << temp.get() << ",";}
std::cout << std::endl;
for (int i = 0; i < d_data.size(); i++){
my_obj<char> temp = d_result[i];
std::cout << temp.get_idx() << ",";}
std::cout << std::endl;
return 0;
}
$ nvcc -o t707 t707.cu
$ ./t707
a,e,t,b,c,a,c,e,t,a,
Grouped:
a,a,a,e,e,t,t,b,c,c,
0,5,9,1,7,2,8,3,4,6,
$
In the discussion we found out that your real goal is to eliminate duplicates in a vector of float4 elements.
In order to apply thrust::unique the elements need to be sorted.
So you need a sort method for 4 dimensional data. This can be done using space-filling curves. I have previously used the z-order curve (aka morton code) to sort 3D data. There are efficient CUDA implementations for the 3D case available, however quick googling did not return a ready-to-use implementation for the 4D case.
I found a paper which lists a generic algorithm for sorting n-dimensional data points using the z-order curve:
Fast construction of k-Nearest Neighbor Graphs for Point Clouds
(see Algorithm 1 : Floating Point Morton Order Algorithm).
There is also a C++ implementation available for this algorithm.
For 4D data, the loop could be unrolled, but there might be simpler and more efficient algorithms available.
So the (not fully implemented) sequence of operations would then look like this:
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <thrust/unique.h>
#include <thrust/sort.h>
inline __host__ __device__ float dot(const float4& a, const float4& b)
{
return a.x * b.x + a.y * b.y + a.z * b.z + a.w * b.w;
}
struct identity_4d
{
__host__ __device__
bool operator()(const float4& a, const float4& b) const
{
// based on the norm function you provided in the discussion
return dot(a,b) < (0.1f*0.1f);
}
};
struct z_order_4d
{
__host__ __device__
bool operator()(const float4& p, const float4& q) const
{
// you need to implement the z-order algorithm here
// ...
}
};
int main()
{
const int N = 100;
thrust::device_vector<float4> data(N);
// fill the data
// ...
thrust::sort(data.begin(),data.end(), z_order_4d());
thrust::unique(data.begin(),data.end(), identity_4d());
}

External call of a class method in a kernel

I have a class FPlan that has a number of methods such as permute and packing.
__host__ __device__ void Perturb_action(FPlan *dfp){
dfp->perturb();
dfp->packing();
}
__global__ void Vector_Perturb(FPlan **dfp, int n){
int i=threadIx.x;
if(i<n) Perturb_action(dfp[i]);
}
in main:
FPlan **fp_vec;
fp_vec=(FPlan**)malloc(VEC_SIZE*sizeof(FPlan*));
//initialize the vec
for(int i=0; i<VEC_SIZE;i++)
fp_vec[i]=&fp;
//fp of type FPlan that is initialized
int v_sz=sizeof(fp_vec);
double test=fp_vec[0]->getCost();
printf("the cost before perturb %f\n"test);
FPlan **value;
cudaMalloc(&value,v_sz);
cudaMemcpy(value,&fp_vec,v_sz,cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//call kernel
dim3 threadsPerBlock(VEC_SIZE);
dim3 numBlocks(1);
Vector_Perturb<<<numBlocks,threadsPerBlock>>> (value,VEC_SIZE);
cudaMemcpy(fp_vec,value,v_sz,cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
test=fp_vec[0]->getCost();
printf("the cost after perturb %f\n"test);
test=fp_vec[1]->getCost();
printf("the cost after perturb %f\n"test);
I am getting before permute for fp_vec[0] printf the cost 0.8.
After permute for fp_vec[0] the value inf and for fp_vec[1] the value 0.8.
The expected output after the permutation should be something like fp_vec[0] = 0.7 and fp_vec[1] = 0.9. I want to apply these permutations to an array of type FPlan.
What am I missing? Is calling an external function supported in CUDA?
This seems to be a common problem these days:
Consider the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main() {
int* arr = (int*) malloc(100);
printf("sizeof(arr) = %i", sizeof(arr));
return 0;
}
what is the expected ouptut? 100? no its 4 (at least on a 32 bit machine). sizeof() returns the size of the type of a variable not the allocated size of an array.
int v_sz=sizeof(fp_vec);
double test=fp_vec[0]->getCost();
printf("the cost before perturb %f\n"test);
FPlan **value;
cudaMalloc(&value,v_sz);
cudaMemcpy(value,&fp_vec,v_sz,cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
You are allocating 4 (or 8) bytes on the device and copy 4 (or 8) bytes. The result is undefined (and maybe every time garbage).
Besides that, you shold do proper error checking of your CUDA calls.
Have a look: What is the canonical way to check for errors using the CUDA runtime API?

A function calls another function in CUDA C++

I have a problem with CUDA programing !
Input is a matrix A( 2 x 2 )
Ouput is a matrix A( 2 x 2 ) with every new value is **3 exponent of the old value **
example :
input : A : { 2,2 } output : A { 8,8 }
{ 2,2 } { 8,8 }
I have 2 function in file CudaCode.CU :
__global__ void Power_of_02(int &a)
{
a=a*a;
}
//***************
__global__ void Power_of_03(int &a)
{
int tempt = a;
Power_of_02(a); //a=a^2;
a= a*tempt; // a = a^3
}
and Kernel :
__global__ void CudaProcessingKernel(int *dataA ) //kernel function
{
int bx = blockIdx.x;
int tx = threadIdx.x;
int tid = bx * XTHREADS + tx;
if(tid < 16)
{
Power_of_03(dataA[tid]);
}
__syncthreads();
}
I think it's right, but the error appear : calling a __global__ function("Power_of_02") from a __global__ function("Power_of_03") is only allowed on the compute_35 architecture or above
Why I wrong ? How to repair it ?
The error is fairly explanatory. A CUDA function decorated with __global__ represents a kernel. Kernels can be launched from host code. On cc 3.5 or higher GPUs, you can also launch a kernel from device code. So if you call a __global__ function from device code (i.e. from another CUDA function that is decorated with __global__ or __device__), then you must be compiling for the appropriate architecture. This is called CUDA dynamic parallelism, and you should read the documentation to learn how to use it, if you want to use it.
When you launch a kernel, whether from host or device code, you must provide a launch configuration, i.e. the information between the triple-chevron notation:
CudaProcessingKernel<<<grid, threads>>>(d_A);
If you want to use your power-of-2 code from another kernel, you will need to call it in a similar, appropriate fashion.
Based on the structure of your code, however, it seems like you can make things work by declaring your power-of-2 and power-of-3 functions as __device__ functions:
__device__ void Power_of_02(int &a)
{
a=a*a;
}
//***************
__device__ void Power_of_03(int &a)
{
int tempt = a;
Power_of_02(a); //a=a^2;
a= a*tempt; // a = a^3
}
This should probably work for you and perhaps was your intent. Functions decorated with __device__ are not kernels (so they are not callable directly from host code) but are callable directly from device code on any architecture. The programming guide will also help to explain the difference.

how to get the index of thrust foreach

I am trying to using thrust for each to give device vector certain values
here is the code
const uint N = 222222;
struct assign_functor
{
template <typename Tuple>
__device__
void operator()(Tuple t)
{
uint x = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
uint y = threadIdx.y + blockIdx.y * blockDim.y;
uint offset = x + y * blockDim.x * gridDim.x;
thrust::get<0>(t) = offset;
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
thrust::device_vector <float> d_float_vec(N);
thrust::for_each(
thrust::make_zip_iterator(
thrust::make_tuple(d_float_vec.begin())
),
thrust::make_zip_iterator(
thrust::make_tuple(d_float_vec.end())
),
assign_functor()
);
std::cout<<d_float_vec[10]<<" "<<d_float_vec[N-2]
}
the output of d_float_vec[N-2] is supposed to be 222220; but it turns out 1036. whats wrong with my code??
I know I could use thrust::sequence to give a sequence values to the vector. I just want to know how to get the real index for thrust foreach function. Thanks!
As noted in comments, your approach is never likely to work because you have assumed a number of things about the way thrust::for_each works internally which are probably not true, including:
You implicitly are assuming that for_each uses a single thread to process each input element. This is almost certainly not the case; it is much more likely that thrust will process multiple elements per thread during the operation.
You are also assuming that execution happens in order so that the Nth thread processes the Nth array element. That may not be the case, and execution may occur in an order which cannot be known a priori
You are assuming for_each processes the whole input data set in a single kernel laumch
Thrust algorithms should be treated as black boxes whose internal operations are undefined and no knowledge of them is required to implement user defined functors. In your example, if you require a sequential index inside a functor, pass a counting iterator. One way to re-write your example would be like this:
#include "thrust/device_vector.h"
#include "thrust/for_each.h"
#include "thrust/tuple.h"
#include "thrust/iterator/counting_iterator.h"
typedef unsigned int uint;
const uint N = 222222;
struct assign_functor
{
template <typename Tuple>
__device__
void operator()(Tuple t)
{
thrust::get<1>(t) = (float)thrust::get<0>(t);
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
thrust::device_vector <float> d_float_vec(N);
thrust::counting_iterator<uint> first(0);
thrust::counting_iterator<uint> last = first + N;
thrust::for_each(
thrust::make_zip_iterator(
thrust::make_tuple(first, d_float_vec.begin())
),
thrust::make_zip_iterator(
thrust::make_tuple(last, d_float_vec.end())
),
assign_functor()
);
std::cout<<d_float_vec[10]<<" "<<d_float_vec[N-2]<<std::endl;
}
Here the counting iterator gets passed in a tuple along with the data array, allow the functor access to a sequential index which corresponds to the data array entry it is dealing with.

Using std::vector in CUDA device code

The question is that: is there a way to use the class "vector" in Cuda kernels? When I try I get the following error:
error : calling a host function("std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > ::push_back") from a __device__/__global__ function not allowed
So there a way to use a vector in global section?
I recently tried the following:
create a new Cuda project
go to properties of the project
open Cuda C/C++
go to Device
change the value in "Code Generation" to be set to this value:
compute_20,sm_20
........ after that I was able to use the printf standard library function in my Cuda kernel.
is there a way to use the standard library class vector in the way printf is supported in kernel code? This is an example of using printf in kernel code:
// this code only to count the 3s in an array using Cuda
//private_count is an array to hold every thread's result separately
__global__ void countKernel(int *a, int length, int* private_count)
{
printf("%d\n",threadIdx.x); //it's print the thread id and it's working
// vector<int> y;
//y.push_back(0); is there a possibility to do this?
unsigned int offset = threadIdx.x * length;
int i = offset;
for( ; i < offset + length; i++)
{
if(a[i] == 3)
{
private_count[threadIdx.x]++;
printf("%d ",a[i]);
}
}
}
You can't use the STL in CUDA, but you may be able to use the Thrust library to do what you want. Otherwise just copy the contents of the vector to the device and operate on it normally.
In the cuda library thrust, you can use thrust::device_vector<classT> to define a vector on device, and the data transfer between host STL vector and device vector is very straightforward. you can refer to this useful link:http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/thrust/index.html to find some useful examples.
you can't use std::vector in device code, you should use array instead.
I think you can implement a device vector by youself, because CUDA supports dynamic memory alloction in device codes. Operator new/delete are also supported. Here is an extremely simple prototype of device vector in CUDA, but it does work. It hasn't been tested sufficiently.
template<typename T>
class LocalVector
{
private:
T* m_begin;
T* m_end;
size_t capacity;
size_t length;
__device__ void expand() {
capacity *= 2;
size_t tempLength = (m_end - m_begin);
T* tempBegin = new T[capacity];
memcpy(tempBegin, m_begin, tempLength * sizeof(T));
delete[] m_begin;
m_begin = tempBegin;
m_end = m_begin + tempLength;
length = static_cast<size_t>(m_end - m_begin);
}
public:
__device__ explicit LocalVector() : length(0), capacity(16) {
m_begin = new T[capacity];
m_end = m_begin;
}
__device__ T& operator[] (unsigned int index) {
return *(m_begin + index);//*(begin+index)
}
__device__ T* begin() {
return m_begin;
}
__device__ T* end() {
return m_end;
}
__device__ ~LocalVector()
{
delete[] m_begin;
m_begin = nullptr;
}
__device__ void add(T t) {
if ((m_end - m_begin) >= capacity) {
expand();
}
new (m_end) T(t);
m_end++;
length++;
}
__device__ T pop() {
T endElement = (*m_end);
delete m_end;
m_end--;
return endElement;
}
__device__ size_t getSize() {
return length;
}
};
You can't use std::vector in device-side code. Why?
It's not marked to allow this
The "formal" reason is that, to use code in your device-side function or kernel, that code itself has to be in a __device__ function; and the code in the standard library, including, std::vector is not. (There's an exception for constexpr code; and in C++20, std::vector does have constexpr methods, but CUDA does not support C++20 at the moment, plus, that constexprness is effectively limited.)
You probably don't really want to
The std::vector class uses allocators to obtain more memory when it needs to grow the storage for the vectors you create or add into. By default (i.e. if you use std::vector<T> for some T) - that allocation is on the heap. While this could be adapted to the GPU - it would be quite slow, and incredibly slow if each "CUDA thread" would dynamically allocate its own memory.
#Now, you could say "But I don't want to allocate memory, I just want to read from the vector!" - well, in that case, you don't need a vector per se. Just copy the data to some on-device buffer, and either pass a pointer and a size, or use a CUDA-capable span, like in cuda-kat. Another option, though a bit "heavier", is to use the [NVIDIA thrust library]'s 3 "device vector" class. Under the hood, it's quite different from the standard library vector though.