I was reading the CURAND Library API and I am a newbie in CUDA and I wanted to see if someone could actually show me a simple code that uses the CURAND Library to generate random numbers. I am looking into generating a large amount of number to use with Discrete Event Simulation. My task is just to develop the algorithms to use GPGPU's to speed up the random number generation. I have implemented the LCG, Multiplicative, and Fibonacci methods in standard C Language Programming. However I want to "port" those codes into CUDA and take advantage of threads and blocks to speed up the process of generating random numbers.
Link 1: http://adnanboz.wordpress.com/tag/nvidia-curand/
That person has two of the methods I will need (LCG and Mersenne Twister) but the codes do not provide much detail. I was wondering if anyone could expand on those initial implementations to actually point me in the right direction on how to use them properly.
Thanks!
Your question is misleading - you say "Use the cuRAND Library for Dummies" but you don't actually want to use cuRAND. If I understand correctly, you actually want to implement your own RNG from scratch rather than use the optimised RNGs available in cuRAND.
First recommendation is to revisit your decision to use your own RNG, why not use cuRAND? If the statistical properties are suitable for your application then you would be much better off using cuRAND in the knowledge that it is tuned for all generations of the GPU. It includes Marsaglia's XORWOW, l'Ecuyer's MRG32k3a, and the MTGP32 Mersenne Twister (as well as Sobol' for Quasi-RNG).
You could also look at Thrust, which has some simple RNGs, for an example see the Monte Carlo sample.
If you really need to create your own generator, then there's some useful techniques in GPU Computing Gems (Emerald Edition, Chapter 16: Parallelization Techniques for Random Number Generators).
As a side note, remember that while a simple LCG is fast and easy to skip-ahead, they typically have fairly poor statistical properties especially when using large quantities of draws. When you say you will need "Mersenne Twister" I assume you mean MT19937. The referenced Gems book talks about parallelising MT19937 but the original developers created the MTGP generators (also referenced above) since MT19937 is fairly complex to implement skip-ahead.
Also as another side note, just using a different seed to achieve parallelisation is usually a bad idea, statistically you are not assured of the independence. You either need to skip-ahead or leap-frog, or else use some other technique (e.g. DCMT) for ensuring there is no correlation between sequences.
Related
I do use functions in VHDL now and then, mostly in testbenches and seldom in synthesized projects, and I'm quite happy with that.
However, I was wondering if for projects that will be synthesized, it really is a smart move (in terms of LE use mostly?) I've read quite a lot of things about that online, however I can't find anything satisfying.
For instance, I've read something like that : "The function is synthesized each time it's called !!". Is it really so? (I thought of it more like a component instantiated once but whose inputs and output and accessed from various places in the design but I guess that may be incorrect).
In the case of a once-used function, what would change between that and writing the VHDL directly in the process for example? (In terms of LE use?).
A circuit in hardware, for example a FPGA, executes everywhere all the time, where in compare a program for an CPU executes only one place at a time. This allows a program on a CPU to reuse program code for different data, where a circuit in hardware must have sufficient resources to process all the data all the time.
So a circuit written in VHDL is generally translated by the synthesis tool as massive parallel construction that allows concurrent operation of all of the design all the time. The VHDL language is created with the purpose of concurrent execution, and this is a major different from ordinary programming languages.
As a consequence, a design that implements an algorithm with functions vs. a design that implements the same algorithm with separate logic, will have the exact same size and speed since the synthesis tool will expand the functions to dedicated logic in order to make the required hardware available.
That being said, it is possible to reuse the same hardware for different data, but the designer must generally explicitly create the design to support this, and thereby interleave different data sets when timing allows it.
And finally, as scary_jeff also points out, it is a smart move to use functions since there is nothing to loose in terms of size or speed, but all the advantages of creating a manageable design. But be aware, that functions can't contain state, so it is only possible to create functions for combinatorial logic between flip-flops, which usually limits the possible complexity in order to meet timing.
Yes, you should use functions and procedures.
Many people and companies use functions and procedures in synthesizable code. Some coding styles disallow functions for no good reason. If you feel uncertain about a certain construct in VHDL (in this case: functions), just type up a small example and inspect the synthesis result.
Functions are really powerful and they can help you create better hardware with less effort. As with all powerful things, you can create really bad code (and bad synthesis results) with functions too.
Just of curiosity. CuBLAS is a library for basic matrix computations. But these computations, in general, can also be written in normal Cuda code easily, without using CuBLAS. So what is the major difference between the CuBLAS library and your own Cuda program for the matrix computations?
We highly recommend developers use cuBLAS (or cuFFT, cuRAND, cuSPARSE, thrust, NPP) when suitable for many reasons:
We validate correctness across every supported hardware platform, including those which we know are coming up but which maybe haven't been released yet. For complex routines, it is entirely possible to have bugs which show up on one architecture (or even one chip) but not on others. This can even happen with changes to the compiler, the runtime, etc.
We test our libraries for performance regressions across the same wide range of platforms.
We can fix bugs in our code if you find them. Hard for us to do this with your code :)
We are always looking for which reusable and useful bits of functionality can be pulled into a library - this saves you a ton of development time, and makes your code easier to read by coding to a higher level API.
Honestly, at this point, I can probably count on one hand the number of developers out there who actually implement their own dense linear algebra routines rather than calling cuBLAS. It's a good exercise when you're learning CUDA, but for production code it's usually best to use a library.
(Disclosure: I run the CUDA Library team)
There's several reasons you'd chose to use a library instead of writing your own implementation. Three, off the top of my head:
You don't have to write it. Why do work when somebody else has done it for you?
It will be optimised. NVIDIA supported libraries such as cuBLAS are likely to be optimised for all current GPU generations, and later releases will be optimised for later generations. While most BLAS operations may seem fairly simple to implement, to get peak performance you have to optimise for hardware (this is not unique to GPUs). A simple implementation of SGEMM, for example, may be many times slower than an optimised version.
They tend to work. There's probably less chance you'll run up against a bug in a library then you'll create a bug in your own implementation which bites you when you change some parameter or other in the future.
The above isn't just relevent to cuBLAS: if you have a method that's in a well supported library you'll probably save a lot of time and gain a lot of performance using it relative to using your own implementation.
I have code doing a lot of operations with objects which can be represented as arrays.
When does it make to sense to use GPGPU environments (like CUDA) in an application? Can I predict performance gains before writing real code?
The convenience depends on a number of factors. Elementwise independent operations on large arrays/matrices are a good candidate.
For your particular problem (machine learning/fuzzy logic), I would recommend reading some related documents, as
Large Scale Machine Learning using NVIDIA CUDA
and
Fuzzy Logic-Based Image Processing Using Graphics Processor Units
to have a feeling on the speedup achieved by other people.
As already mentioned, you should specify your problem. However, if large parts of your code involve operations on your objects that are independent in a sense that object n does not have to wait for the results of the operations objects 0 to n-1, GPUs may enhance performance.
You could go to CUDA Zone to get yourself a general idea about what CUDA can do and do better than CPU.
https://developer.nvidia.com/category/zone/cuda-zone
CUDA has already provided lots of performance libraries, tools and ecosystems to reduce the development difficulty. It could also help you understand what kind of operations CUDA are good at.
https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-tools-ecosystem
Further more, CUDA provided benchmark report on some of the most common and representative operations. You could find if your code can benefit from that.
https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/cuda/files/CUDADownloads/CUDA_5.0_Math_Libraries_Performance.pdf
I've recently started a project, building a physics engine.
I was hoping you could give me some advice related to some documentation and/or best technologies for this.
First of all, I've seen that Game-Physics-Engine-Development is highly recommended for the task at hand, and I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion.Should I get it?
Also, while browsing Amazon, I've stumbled onto Game Engine Architecture and since I want to build my physics engine for games, I thought this might be a good read aswell.
Second, I know that simulating physics is highly computation intensive so I would like to use either CUDA or OpenCL.Right now I'm leaning towards OpenCL, because it would work on both NVIDIA and ATI chipsets.What do you guys suggest?
PS: I will be implementing this in C++ on Linux.
Thanks.
I would suggest first of all planning a simple game as a test case for your engine. Having a basic game will drive feature and API development. Writing an engine without having clear goal makes the project riskier. While I agree nVidia and ATi should be treated as separate targets for performance reasons, I'd recommend you start with neither.
I personally wrote physics engine for Uncharted:Drake's Fortune - a PS3 game - and I did a pass in C++, and when it worked, made a pass to optimize it for VMX and then put it on SPU. Mind you, I did just a fraction what I wanted to do initially because of time constraints. After that I made an iteration to split data stages out and formulate a pipeline of data transformations. It's important because whether CPU, GPU or SPU, modern processors running nontrivial code spend most of the time waiting for caches. You have to pay special attention to data structures and pipeline them such that you have a small working set of data at any stage. E.g. first I do broadphase, so I don't need shapes but I need world-space bounding boxes. So I split bounding boxes into separate array and compute them all together in another pass, that writes them out in an optimal way. As input to bbox computation, I need shape transformations and some bounds from them, but not necessarily the whole shapes. After broadphase, I compute/update sim islands, at the same time performing narrow phase, for which I do actually need the shapes. And so on - I described this with pictures in an article to Game Physics Pearls I wrote.
I guess what I'm trying to say are the following points:
Make sure you have a clear goal that drives your development - a very basic game with flushed out design would be best in game physics engine case.
Don't try to optimize before you have a working product. Write it in the simplest and fastest way possible first and fix all the bugs in math. Design it so that you can port it to CUDA later, but don't start writing CUDA kernels before you have boxes rolling on the screen.
After you write the first pass in C++, optimize it for CPU : streamline it such that it doesn't thrash the cache, and compartmentalize the code so that there's no spaghetti of calls and all the code from each stage is localized. This will help a) port to CUDA b) port to OpenCL c) port to a console d) make it run reasonably fast e) make it possible to debug.
While developing, resist temptation to go do something you just thought about unless that feature is not necessary for your clear goal (see #1) - that's why you need a goal, to steer you towards it and make it possible to finish the actual project. Distractions usually kill projects without clear goals.
Remember that in one way or another, software development is iterative. It's ok to do a rough-in and then refine it. Leather, rinse, repeat - it's a mantra of a programmer :)
It's easy to give advice. If you wanna do something, just go and do it, and we'll sit back and critique :)
Here is an answer regarding the choice of CUDA or OpenCL. I do not have a recommendation for a book.
If you want to run your program on both NVIDIA and ATI chipsets, then OpenCL will make the job easier. However, you will want to write a different version of each kernel to get good performance on each chipset. For example, on ATI cards you'll want to manually vectorize code using float4/int4 data types (or accept a nearly 4x performance penalty), while NVIDIA works better with scalar data types.
If you're only targeting NVIDIA, then CUDA is somewhat more convenient to program in.
Does anyone have any experience implementing a hash map on a CUDA Device? Specifically, I'm wondering how one might go about allocating memory on the Device and copying the result back to the Host, or whether there are any useful libraries that can facilitate this task.
It seems like I would need to know the maximum size of the hash map a priori in order to allocate Device memory. All my previous CUDA endeavors have used arrays and memcpys and therefore been fairly straightforward.
Any insight into this problem are appreciated. Thanks.
There is a GPU Hash Table implementation presented in "CUDA by example", from Jason Sanders and Edward Kandrot.
Fortunately, you can get information on this book and download the examples source code freely on this page:
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda-by-example.html
In this implementation, the table is pre-allocated on CPU and safe multithreaded access is ensured by a lock function based upon the atomic function atomicCAS (Compare And Swap).
Moreover, newer hardware generation (from 2.0) combined with CUDA >= 4.0 are supposed to be able to use directly new/delete operators on the GPU ( http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cuda_4_0_RC_downloads.html?utm_source=http://forums.nvidia.com&utm_medium=http://forums.nvidia.com&utm_term=Developers&utm_content=Developers&utm_campaign=CUDA4 ), which could serve your implementation. I haven't tested these features yet.
cuCollections is a relatively new open-source library started by NVIDIA engineers aiming at implementing efficient containers on the GPU.
cuCollections (cuco) is an open-source, header-only library of GPU-accelerated, concurrent data structures.
Similar to how Thrust and CUB provide STL-like, GPU accelerated algorithms and primitives, cuCollections provides STL-like concurrent data structures. cuCollections is not a one-to-one, drop-in replacement for STL data structures like std::unordered_map. Instead, it provides functionally similar data structures tailored for efficient use with GPUs.
cuCollections is still under heavy development. Users should expect breaking changes and refactoring to be common.
At the moment it provides a fixed size hashtable cuco::static_map and one that can grow cuco::dynamic_map.
I recall someone developed a straightforward hash map implementation on top of thrust. There is some code for it here, although whether it works with current thrust releases is something I don't know. It might at least give you some ideas.
AFAIK, the hash table given in "Cuda by Example" does not perform too well.
Currently, I believe, the fastest hash table on CUDA is given in Dan Alcantara's PhD dissertation. Look at chapter 6.
BTW, warpcore is a framework for creating high-throughput, purpose-built hashing data structures on CUDA-accelerators. Hashing at the speed of light on modern CUDA-accelerators. You can find it here:
https://github.com/sleeepyjack/warpcore