Counting occurrences of numbers in a CUDA array - cuda

I have an array of unsigned integers stored on the GPU with CUDA (typically 1000000 elements). I would like to count the occurrence of every number in the array. There are only a few distinct numbers (about 10), but these numbers can span from 1 to 1000000. About 9/10th of the numbers are 0, I don't need the count of them. The result looks something like this:
58458 -> 1000 occurrences
15 -> 412 occurrences
I have an implementation using atomicAdds, but it is too slow (a lot of threads write to the same address). Does someone know of a fast/efficient method?

You can implement a histogram by first sorting the numbers, and then doing a keyed reduction.
The most straightforward method would be to use thrust::sort and then thrust::reduce_by_key. It's also often much faster than ad hoc binning based on atomics. Here's an example.

I suppose you can find help in the CUDA examples, specifically the histogram examples. They are part of the GPU computing SDK.
You can find it here http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-cc-sdk-code-samples#histogram. They even have a whitepaper explaining the algorithms.

I'm comparing two approaches suggested at the duplicate question thrust count occurence, namely,
Using thrust::counting_iterator and thrust::upper_bound, following the histogram Thrust example;
Using thrust::unique_copy and thrust::upper_bound.
Below, please find a fully worked example.
#include <time.h> // --- time
#include <stdlib.h> // --- srand, rand
#include <iostream>
#include <thrust\host_vector.h>
#include <thrust\device_vector.h>
#include <thrust\sort.h>
#include <thrust\iterator\zip_iterator.h>
#include <thrust\unique.h>
#include <thrust/binary_search.h>
#include <thrust\adjacent_difference.h>
#include "Utilities.cuh"
#include "TimingGPU.cuh"
//#define VERBOSE
#define NO_HISTOGRAM
/********/
/* MAIN */
/********/
int main() {
const int N = 1048576;
//const int N = 20;
//const int N = 128;
TimingGPU timerGPU;
// --- Initialize random seed
srand(time(NULL));
thrust::host_vector<int> h_code(N);
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++) {
// --- Generate random numbers between 0 and 9
h_code[k] = (rand() % 10);
}
thrust::device_vector<int> d_code(h_code);
//thrust::device_vector<unsigned int> d_counting(N);
thrust::sort(d_code.begin(), d_code.end());
h_code = d_code;
timerGPU.StartCounter();
#ifdef NO_HISTOGRAM
// --- The number of d_cumsum bins is equal to the maximum value plus one
int num_bins = d_code.back() + 1;
thrust::device_vector<int> d_code_unique(num_bins);
thrust::unique_copy(d_code.begin(), d_code.end(), d_code_unique.begin());
thrust::device_vector<int> d_counting(num_bins);
thrust::upper_bound(d_code.begin(), d_code.end(), d_code_unique.begin(), d_code_unique.end(), d_counting.begin());
#else
thrust::device_vector<int> d_cumsum;
// --- The number of d_cumsum bins is equal to the maximum value plus one
int num_bins = d_code.back() + 1;
// --- Resize d_cumsum storage
d_cumsum.resize(num_bins);
// --- Find the end of each bin of values - Cumulative d_cumsum
thrust::counting_iterator<int> search_begin(0);
thrust::upper_bound(d_code.begin(), d_code.end(), search_begin, search_begin + num_bins, d_cumsum.begin());
// --- Compute the histogram by taking differences of the cumulative d_cumsum
//thrust::device_vector<int> d_counting(num_bins);
//thrust::adjacent_difference(d_cumsum.begin(), d_cumsum.end(), d_counting.begin());
#endif
printf("Timing GPU = %f\n", timerGPU.GetCounter());
#ifdef VERBOSE
thrust::host_vector<int> h_counting(d_counting);
printf("After\n");
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++) printf("code = %i\n", h_code[k]);
#ifndef NO_HISTOGRAM
thrust::host_vector<int> h_cumsum(d_cumsum);
printf("\nCounting\n");
for (int k = 0; k < num_bins; k++) printf("element = %i; counting = %i; cumsum = %i\n", k, h_counting[k], h_cumsum[k]);
#else
thrust::host_vector<int> h_code_unique(d_code_unique);
printf("\nCounting\n");
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++) printf("element = %i; counting = %i\n", h_code_unique[k], h_counting[k]);
#endif
#endif
}
The first approach has shown to be the fastest. On an NVIDIA GTX 960 card, I have had the following timings for a number of N = 1048576 array elements:
First approach: 2.35ms
First approach without thrust::adjacent_difference: 1.52
Second approach: 4.67ms
Please, note that there is no strict need to calculate the adjacent difference explicitly, since this operation can be manually done during a kernel processing, if needed.

As others have said, you can use the sort & reduce_by_key approach to count frequencies. In my case, I needed to get mode of an array (maximum frequency/occurrence) so here is my solution:
1 - First, we create two new arrays, one containing a copy of input data and another filled with ones to later reduce it (sum):
// Input: [1 3 3 3 2 2 3]
// *(Temp) dev_keys: [1 3 3 3 2 2 3]
// *(Temp) dev_ones: [1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
// Copy input data
thrust::device_vector<int> dev_keys(myptr, myptr+size);
// Fill an array with ones
thrust::fill(dev_ones.begin(), dev_ones.end(), 1);
2 - Then, we sort the keys since the reduce_by_key function needs the array to be sorted.
// Sort keys (see below why)
thrust::sort(dev_keys.begin(), dev_keys.end());
3 - Later, we create two output vectors, for the (unique) keys and their frequencies:
thrust::device_vector<int> output_keys(N);
thrust::device_vector<int> output_freqs(N);
4 - Finally, we perform the reduction by key:
// Reduce contiguous keys: [1 3 3 3 2 2 3] => [1 3 2 1] Vs. [1 3 3 3 3 2 2] => [1 4 2]
thrust::pair<thrust::device_vector<int>::iterator, thrust::device_vector<int>::iterator> new_end;
new_end = thrust::reduce_by_key(dev_keys.begin(), dev_keys.end(), dev_ones.begin(), output_keys.begin(), output_freqs.begin());
5 - ...and if we want, we can get the most frequent element
// Get most frequent element
// Get index of the maximum frequency
int num_keys = new_end.first - output_keys.begin();
thrust::device_vector<int>::iterator iter = thrust::max_element(output_freqs.begin(), output_freqs.begin() + num_keys);
unsigned int index = iter - output_freqs.begin();
int most_frequent_key = output_keys[index];
int most_frequent_val = output_freqs[index]; // Frequencies

Related

What is wrong with my understanding of "__shared__" variables in cuda?

After reading the manual of NVIDIA, I wrotea parrell reduction code as follows:
__global__ void kernel(int *devData)
{
__shared__ int sum;
int i = blockDim.x * blockIdx.x + threadIdx.x;
if (threadIdx.x == 0)
sum = 0;
__syncthreads();
sum += devData[i];
__syncthreads();
if (threadIdx.x == 0)
printf("sum of block %d is %d\n", blockIdx.x, sum);
}
int main(void)
{
// init device
int devIdx = 0;
cudaError_t err = cudaSuccess;
gpuDeviceInit(devIdx);
int i;
int data[100];
int *devData;
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
data[i] = 1;
err = cudaMalloc(&devData, 100 * sizeof(int));
checkCudaErrors(err);
// copy data to device
err = cudaMemcpy(devData, data, 100 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
checkCudaErrors(err);
int blocksPerGrid = 10;
int threadsPerBlock = 10;
// call kernel function
kernel <<<blocksPerGrid, threadsPerBlock>>> (devData);
checkCudaErrors(cudaGetLastError());
cudaDeviceReset();
return 0;
}
I'm trying to sum integers for each block and then print this sum.
But I found the result was as follows:
sum of block 0 is 1
sum of block 6 is 1
sum of block 2 is 1
sum of block 8 is 1
sum of block 1 is 1
sum of block 7 is 1
sum of block 4 is 1
sum of block 3 is 1
sum of block 9 is 1
sum of block 5 is 1
The result I expected was 10.Is the __shared__ variable "sum" shared by every thread in a block? What's wrong with my understanding of "__shared__" variables in cuda?
you have multiple threads trying to access (read-modify-write) sum at the same time, here:
sum += devData[i];
This doesn't work for either global or shared data in CUDA (i.e. CUDA won't sort that out for you, automatically). To sort this out, the usual approaches are either to use atomics or else to use a canonical parallel reduction
There are numerous questions on both of these topics here on the cuda SO tag, and you can get some focused training on parallel reduction methods in unit 5 of this online training series.
For example, in your code, a trivial change to "fix" would be to replace the above line of code with an atomic add:
atomicAdd(&sum,devData[i]);
atomics force serialization, so a preferred approach is a canonical parallel reduction.

Real scaled Sparse matrix vector multiplication in Cusp?

In cusp, there is a multiply to calculate spmv(sparse matrix vector multiplication) that takes a reduce and a combine:
template <typename LinearOperator,
typename MatrixOrVector1,
typename MatrixOrVector2,
typename UnaryFunction,
typename BinaryFunction1,
typename BinaryFunction2>
void multiply(const LinearOperator& A,
const MatrixOrVector1& B,
MatrixOrVector2& C,
UnaryFunction initialize,
BinaryFunction1 combine,
BinaryFunction2 reduce);
From the interface it seems like custom combine and reduce should be possible for any matrix/vector multiplication. I think cusp supports to use other combine and reduce function defined in thrust/functional.h besides multiplication and plus to calculate spmv. For example, can I use thrust::plus to replace multiplication the original combine function(i.e. multiplication)?
And I guess, this scaled spmv also support those sparse matrix in coo,csr,dia,hyb format.
However, I got a wrong answer when I tested the below example in a.cu whose matrix A was in coo format.
It used plus operator to combine. And I compiled it with cmd : nvcc a.cu -o a to .
#include <cusp/csr_matrix.h>
#include <cusp/monitor.h>
#include <cusp/multiply.h>
#include <cusp/print.h>
#include <cusp/krylov/cg.h>
int main(void)
{
// COO format in host memory
int host_I[13] = {0,0,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,5}; // COO row indices
int host_J[13] = {0,1,1,2,2,4,6,3,4,5,5,5,6}; // COO column indices
int host_V[13] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
// x and y arrays in host memory
int host_x[7] = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1};
int host_y[6] = {0,0,0,0,0,0};
// allocate device memory for COO format
int * device_I;
cudaMalloc(&device_I, 13 * sizeof(int));
int * device_J;
cudaMalloc(&device_J, 13 * sizeof(int));
int * device_V;
cudaMalloc(&device_V, 13 * sizeof(int));
// allocate device memory for x and y arrays
int * device_x;
cudaMalloc(&device_x, 7 * sizeof(int));
int * device_y;
cudaMalloc(&device_y, 6 * sizeof(int));
// copy raw data from host to device
cudaMemcpy(device_I, host_I, 13 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(device_J, host_J, 13 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(device_V, host_V, 13 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(device_x, host_x, 7 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy(device_y, host_y, 6 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
// matrices and vectors now reside on the device
// *NOTE* raw pointers must be wrapped with thrust::device_ptr!
thrust::device_ptr<int> wrapped_device_I(device_I);
thrust::device_ptr<int> wrapped_device_J(device_J);
thrust::device_ptr<int> wrapped_device_V(device_V);
thrust::device_ptr<int> wrapped_device_x(device_x);
thrust::device_ptr<int> wrapped_device_y(device_y);
// use array1d_view to wrap the individual arrays
typedef typename cusp::array1d_view< thrust::device_ptr<int> > DeviceIndexArrayView;
typedef typename cusp::array1d_view< thrust::device_ptr<int> > DeviceValueArrayView;
DeviceIndexArrayView row_indices (wrapped_device_I, wrapped_device_I + 13);
DeviceIndexArrayView column_indices(wrapped_device_J, wrapped_device_J + 13);
DeviceValueArrayView values (wrapped_device_V, wrapped_device_V + 13);
DeviceValueArrayView x (wrapped_device_x, wrapped_device_x + 7);
DeviceValueArrayView y (wrapped_device_y, wrapped_device_y + 6);
// combine the three array1d_views into a coo_matrix_view
typedef cusp::coo_matrix_view<DeviceIndexArrayView,
DeviceIndexArrayView,
DeviceValueArrayView> DeviceView;
// construct a coo_matrix_view from the array1d_views
DeviceView A(6, 7, 13, row_indices, column_indices, values);
std::cout << "\ndevice coo_matrix_view" << std::endl;
cusp::print(A);
cusp::constant_functor<int> initialize;
thrust::plus<int> combine;
thrust::plus<int> reduce;
cusp::multiply(A , x , y , initialize, combine, reduce);
std::cout << "\nx array" << std::endl;
cusp::print(x);
std::cout << "\n y array, y = A * x" << std::endl;
cusp::print(y);
cudaMemcpy(host_y, device_y, 6 * sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
// free device arrays
cudaFree(device_I);
cudaFree(device_J);
cudaFree(device_V);
cudaFree(device_x);
cudaFree(device_y);
return 0;
}
And I got the below answer.
device coo_matrix_view
sparse matrix <6, 7> with 13 entries
0 0 (1)
0 1 (1)
1 1 (1)
1 2 (1)
2 2 (1)
2 4 (1)
2 6 (1)
3 3 (1)
3 4 (1)
3 5 (1)
4 5 (1)
5 5 (1)
5 6 (1)
x array
array1d <7>
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
y array, y = A * x
array1d <6>
(4)
(4)
(6)
(6)
(2)
(631)
The vector y I got is strange, I think the correct answer y should be:
[9,
9,
10,
10,
8,
9]
So I do not sure that whether such replacement of combine and reduce can be adapted to other sparse matrix format, like coo. Or maybe the code I wrote above is incorrect to call multiply.
Can you give me some help? Any info will help.
Thank you!
From a very brief reading of the code and instrumentation of your example, this seems to be something badly broken in CUSP causing the problem for this usage case. The code only appears to accidentally work correctly for the case where the combine operator is multiplication because the spurious operations it performs with zero elements do not effect the reduction operation (ie. it just sums a lot of additional zeros).

Thrust Histogram with weights

I want to compute the density of particles over a grid. Therefore, I have a vector that contains the cellID of each particle, as well as a vector with the given mass which does not have to be uniform.
I have taken the non-sparse example from Thrust to compute a histogram of my particles.
However, to compute the density, I need to include the weight of each particle, instead of simply summing the number of particles per cell, i.e. I'm interested in rho[i] = sum W[j] for all j that satify cellID[j]=i (probably unnecessary to explain, since everybody knows that).
Implementing this with Thrust has not worked for me. I also tried to use a CUDA kernel and thrust_raw_pointer_cast, but I did not succeed with that either.
EDIT:
Here is a minimal working example which should compile via nvcc file.cu under CUDA 6.5 and with Thrust installed.
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <thrust/sort.h>
#include <thrust/copy.h>
#include <thrust/binary_search.h>
#include <thrust/adjacent_difference.h>
// Predicate
struct is_out_of_bounds {
__host__ __device__ bool operator()(int i) {
return (i < 0); // out of bounds elements have negative id;
}
};
// cf.: https://code.google.com/p/thrust/source/browse/examples/histogram.cu, but modified
template<typename T1, typename T2>
void computeHistogram(const T1& input, T2& histogram) {
typedef typename T1::value_type ValueType; // input value type
typedef typename T2::value_type IndexType; // histogram index type
// copy input data (could be skipped if input is allowed to be modified)
thrust::device_vector<ValueType> data(input);
// sort data to bring equal elements together
thrust::sort(data.begin(), data.end());
// there are elements that we don't want to count, those have ID -1;
data.erase(thrust::remove_if(data.begin(), data.end(), is_out_of_bounds()),data.end());
// number of histogram bins is equal to the maximum value plus one
IndexType num_bins = histogram.size();
// find the end of each bin of values
thrust::counting_iterator<IndexType> search_begin(0);
thrust::upper_bound(data.begin(), data.end(), search_begin,
search_begin + num_bins, histogram.begin());
// compute the histogram by taking differences of the cumulative histogram
thrust::adjacent_difference(histogram.begin(), histogram.end(),
histogram.begin());
}
int main(void) {
thrust::device_vector<int> cellID(5);
cellID[0] = -1; cellID[1] = 1; cellID[2] = 0; cellID[3] = 2; cellID[4]=1;
thrust::device_vector<float> mass(5);
mass[0] = .5; mass[1] = 1.0; mass[2] = 2.0; mass[3] = 3.0; mass[4] = 4.0;
thrust::device_vector<int> histogram(3);
thrust::device_vector<float> density(3);
computeHistogram(cellID,histogram);
std::cout<<"\nHistogram:\n";
thrust::copy(histogram.begin(), histogram.end(),
std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
std::cout << std::endl;
// this will print: " Histogram 1 2 1 "
// meaning one element with ID 0, two elements with ID 1
// and one element with ID 2
/* here is what I am unable to implement:
*
*
* computeDensity(cellID,mass,density);
*
* print(density): 2.0 5.0 3.0
*
*
*/
}
I hope the comment at the end of the file also makes clear what I mean by computing the density. If there is any question open, please feel free to ask. Thanks!
There still seems to be a problem in understanding my problem, which I am sorry for! Therefore I added some pictures.
Consider the first picture. For my understanding, a histogram would simply be the count of particles per grid cell. In this case a histogram would be an array of size 36, since there are 36 cells. Also, there would be a lot of zero entries in the vector, since for example in the upper left corner almost no cell contains a particle. This is what I already have in my code.
Now consider the slightly more complicated case. Here each particle has a different mass, indicated by the different size in the plot. To compute the density I can't just add the number of particles per cell, but I have to add the mass of all particles per cell. This is what I'm unable to implement.
What you described in your example does not look like a histogram but rather like a segmented reduction.
The following example code uses thrust::reduce_by_key to sum up the masses of particles within the same cell:
density.cu
#include <thrust/device_vector.h>
#include <thrust/sort.h>
#include <thrust/reduce.h>
#include <thrust/copy.h>
#include <thrust/scatter.h>
#include <iostream>
#define PRINTER(name) print(#name, (name))
template <template <typename...> class V, typename T, typename ...Args>
void print(const char* name, const V<T,Args...> & v)
{
std::cout << name << ":\t\t";
thrust::copy(v.begin(), v.end(), std::ostream_iterator<T>(std::cout, "\t"));
std::cout << std::endl << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
const int particle_count = 5;
const int cell_count = 10;
thrust::device_vector<int> cellID(particle_count);
cellID[0] = -1; cellID[1] = 1; cellID[2] = 0; cellID[3] = 2; cellID[4]=1;
thrust::device_vector<float> mass(particle_count);
mass[0] = .5; mass[1] = 1.0; mass[2] = 2.0; mass[3] = 3.0; mass[4] = 4.0;
std::cout << "input data" << std::endl;
PRINTER(cellID);
PRINTER(mass);
thrust::sort_by_key(cellID. begin(), cellID.end(), mass.begin());
std::cout << "after sort_by_key" << std::endl;
PRINTER(cellID);
PRINTER(mass);
thrust::device_vector<int> reduced_cellID(particle_count);
thrust::device_vector<float> density(particle_count);
int new_size = thrust::reduce_by_key(cellID. begin(), cellID.end(),
mass.begin(),
reduced_cellID.begin(),
density.begin()
).second - density.begin();
if (reduced_cellID[0] == -1)
{
density.erase(density.begin());
reduced_cellID.erase(reduced_cellID.begin());
new_size--;
}
density.resize(new_size);
reduced_cellID.resize(new_size);
std::cout << "after reduce_by_key" << std::endl;
PRINTER(density);
PRINTER(reduced_cellID);
thrust::device_vector<float> final_density(cell_count);
thrust::scatter(density.begin(), density.end(), reduced_cellID.begin(), final_density.begin());
PRINTER(final_density);
}
compile using
nvcc -std=c++11 density.cu -o density
output
input data
cellID: -1 1 0 2 1
mass: 0.5 1 2 3 4
after sort_by_key
cellID: -1 0 1 1 2
mass: 0.5 2 1 4 3
after reduce_by_key
density: 2 5 3
reduced_cellID: 0 1 2
final_density: 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Best strategy for grid search with CUDA

Recently I started working with CUDA and I read an introductory book on the computing language. To see if I understood it well, I considered the following problem.
Consider a function minimize f(x,y) on the grid [-1,1] X [-1,1]. This provided me with a few practical questions and I would like to have your look on things.
Do I explicitly calculate the grid? If I create the grid on the CPU, then I'll have to transfer the information to the GPU. I can then use a 2D block layout and access data efficiently using texture memory. Is it then best to use square blocks or perhaps blocks of different shapes?
Suppose I don't explicitly make a grid. I can assign discretise the X and Y direction with constant float arrays (which provides fast memory access) and then use 1 list of blocks.
Thanks!
This was an interesting question for me because it represents a type of problem that I think is rare:
potentially high compute load
little to no data that needs to be communicated host->device
very low volume of results that need to be communicated device->host
In other words, pretty much all compute, with not much dependence on data transfer, or even global memory usage/bandwidth.
Having said that, the question seems to be looking for a brute-force search approach to functional optimization/minimization, which is not an efficient technique for functions that are amenable to other optimization methods. But as a learning exercise, it's interesting (to me, anyway). It may also be useful for functions that are otherwise difficult to handle such as functions with discontinuities or other irregularities.
To answer your questions:
Do I explicitly calculate the grid? If I create the grid on the CPU, then I'll have to transfer the information to the GPU. I can then use a 2D block layout and access data efficiently using texture memory. Is it then best to use square blocks or perhaps blocks of different shapes?
I wouldn't bother calculating the grid on the CPU. (I assume by "grid" you mean the functional value of f at each point on the grid.) First of all, this is a fairly computationally intensive task - which GPUs are good at, and secondly, it is potentially a large data set, so transferring it to the GPU (so the GPU can then do the search) will take time. I propose to let the GPU do this (compute the functional value at each grid point.) Since we won't be using global access to data for this, texture memory is not an issue.
Suppose I don't explicitly make a grid. I can assign discretise the X and Y direction with constant float arrays (which provides fast memory access) and then use 1 list of blocks.
Yes, you could use a 1D array of blocks (list) or a 2D array. I don't think this significantly impacts the problem either way, and I think the 2D grid approach fits the problem better (and I think allows for slightly cleaner code) so I would suggest starting with a 2D array of blocks.
Here's a sample code that might be interesting to play with or crystallize ideas. Each thread has the responsibility to compute its respective value of x and y, and then the functional value f at that point. Then a reduction followed by a block-draining reduction is used to search over all computed values for the minimum value (in this case).
$ cat t811.cu
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <assert.h>
// grid dimensions and divisions
#define XNR -1.0f
#define XPR 1.0f
#define YNR -1.0f
#define YPR 1.0f
#define DX 0.0001f
#define DY 0.0001f
// threadblock dimensions - product must be a power of 2
#define BLK_X 16
#define BLK_Y 16
// optimization functions - these are currently set for minimization
#define TST(X1,X2) ((X1)>(X2))
#define OPT(X1,X2) (X2)
// error check macro
#define cudaCheckErrors(msg) \
do { \
cudaError_t __err = cudaGetLastError(); \
if (__err != cudaSuccess) { \
fprintf(stderr, "Fatal error: %s (%s at %s:%d)\n", \
msg, cudaGetErrorString(__err), \
__FILE__, __LINE__); \
fprintf(stderr, "*** FAILED - ABORTING\n"); \
exit(1); \
} \
} while (0)
// for timing
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#define USECPSEC 1000000ULL
long long dtime_usec(unsigned long long start){
timeval tv;
gettimeofday(&tv, 0);
return ((tv.tv_sec*USECPSEC)+tv.tv_usec)-start;
}
// the function f that will be "optimized"
__host__ __device__ float f(float x, float y){
return (x+0.5)*(x+0.5) + (y+0.5)*(y+0.5) +0.1f;
}
// variable for block-draining reduction block counter
__device__ int blkcnt = 0;
// GPU optimization kernel
__global__ void opt_kernel(float * __restrict__ bf, float * __restrict__ bx, float * __restrict__ by, const float scx, const float scy){
__shared__ float sh_f[BLK_X*BLK_Y];
__shared__ float sh_x[BLK_X*BLK_Y];
__shared__ float sh_y[BLK_X*BLK_Y];
__shared__ int lblock;
// compute x,y coordinates for this thread
float x = ((threadIdx.x+blockDim.x*blockIdx.x) * (XPR-XNR))*scx + XNR;
float y = ((threadIdx.y+blockDim.y*blockIdx.y) * (YPR-YNR))*scy + YNR;
int thid = (threadIdx.y*BLK_X)+threadIdx.x;
lblock = 0;
sh_x[thid] = x;
sh_y[thid] = y;
sh_f[thid] = f(x,y); // compute functional value of f(x,y)
__syncthreads();
// perform block-level shared memory reduction
// assume block size is a power of 2
for (int i = (blockDim.x*blockDim.y)>>1; i > 16; i>>=1){
if (thid < i)
if (TST(sh_f[thid],sh_f[thid+i])){
sh_f[thid] = OPT(sh_f[thid],sh_f[thid+i]);
sh_x[thid] = OPT(sh_x[thid],sh_x[thid+i]);
sh_y[thid] = OPT(sh_y[thid],sh_y[thid+i]);}
__syncthreads();}
volatile float *vf = sh_f;
volatile float *vx = sh_x;
volatile float *vy = sh_y;
for (int i = 16; i > 0; i>>=1)
if (thid < i)
if (TST(vf[thid],vf[thid+i])){
vf[thid] = OPT(vf[thid],vf[thid+i]);
vx[thid] = OPT(vx[thid],vx[thid+i]);
vy[thid] = OPT(vy[thid],vy[thid+i]);}
// save block reduction result, and check if last block
if (!thid){
bf[blockIdx.y*gridDim.x+blockIdx.x] = sh_f[0];
bx[blockIdx.y*gridDim.x+blockIdx.x] = sh_x[0];
by[blockIdx.y*gridDim.x+blockIdx.x] = sh_y[0];
int myblock = atomicAdd(&blkcnt, 1);
if (myblock == (gridDim.x*gridDim.y-1)) lblock = 1;}
__syncthreads();
if (lblock){
// do last-block reduction
float my_x, my_y, my_f;
int myid = thid;
if (myid < gridDim.x * gridDim.y){
my_x = bx[myid];
my_y = by[myid];
my_f = bf[myid];}
else { assert(0);} // does not work correctly if block dims are greater than grid dims
myid += blockDim.x*blockDim.y;
while (myid < gridDim.x*gridDim.y){
if TST(my_f,bf[myid]){
my_x = OPT(my_x,bx[myid]);
my_y = OPT(my_y,by[myid]);
my_f = OPT(my_f,bf[myid]);}
myid += blockDim.x*blockDim.y;}
sh_f[thid] = my_f;
sh_x[thid] = my_x;
sh_y[thid] = my_y;
__syncthreads();
for (int i = (blockDim.x*blockDim.y)>>1; i > 0; i>>=1){
if (thid < i)
if (TST(sh_f[thid],sh_f[thid+i])){
sh_f[thid] = OPT(sh_f[thid],sh_f[thid+i]);
sh_x[thid] = OPT(sh_x[thid],sh_x[thid+i]);
sh_y[thid] = OPT(sh_y[thid],sh_y[thid+i]);}
__syncthreads();}
if (!thid){
bf[0] = sh_f[0];
bx[0] = sh_x[0];
by[0] = sh_y[0];
}
}
}
// cpu (naive,serial) function for comparison
float3 opt_cpu(){
float optx = XNR;
float opty = YNR;
float optf = f(optx,opty);
for (float x = XNR; x < XPR; x += DX)
for (float y = YNR; y < YPR; y += DY){
float test = f(x,y);
if (TST(optf,test)){
optf = OPT(optf,test);
optx = OPT(optx,x);
opty = OPT(opty,y);}}
return make_float3(optf, optx, opty);
}
int main(){
// compute threadblock and grid dimensions
int nx = ceil(XPR-XNR)/DX;
int ny = ceil(YPR-YNR)/DY;
int bx = ceil(nx/(float)BLK_X);
int by = ceil(ny/(float)BLK_Y);
dim3 threads(BLK_X, BLK_Y);
dim3 blocks(bx, by);
float *d_bx, *d_by, *d_bf;
cudaFree(0);
// run GPU test case
unsigned long gtime = dtime_usec(0);
cudaMalloc(&d_bx, bx*by*sizeof(float));
cudaMalloc(&d_by, bx*by*sizeof(float));
cudaMalloc(&d_bf, bx*by*sizeof(float));
opt_kernel<<<blocks, threads>>>(d_bf, d_bx, d_by, 1.0f/(blocks.x*threads.x), 1.0f/(blocks.y*threads.y));
float rf, rx, ry;
cudaMemcpy(&rf, d_bf, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaMemcpy(&rx, d_bx, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaMemcpy(&ry, d_by, sizeof(float), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaCheckErrors("some error");
gtime = dtime_usec(gtime);
printf("gpu val: %f, x: %f, y: %f, time: %fs\n", rf, rx, ry, gtime/(float)USECPSEC);
//run CPU test case
unsigned long ctime = dtime_usec(0);
float3 cpu_res = opt_cpu();
ctime = dtime_usec(ctime);
printf("cpu val: %f, x: %f, y: %f, time: %fs\n", cpu_res.x, cpu_res.y, cpu_res.z, ctime/(float)USECPSEC);
return 0;
}
$ nvcc -O3 -o t811 t811.cu
$ ./t811
gpu val: 0.100000, x: -0.500000, y: -0.500000, time: 0.193248s
cpu val: 0.100000, x: -0.500017, y: -0.500017, time: 2.810862s
$
Notes:
This problem is set up to find the minimum value of f(x,y) = (x+0.5)^2 + (y+0.5)^2 + 0.1 over the domain: x(-1,1), y(-1,1)
The test was run on Fedora 20, CUDA 7, Quadro5000 GPU (cc2.0) and a Xeon X5560 2.8GHz CPU. Different CPU or GPU will obviously affect the comparison.
The observed speedup here is about 14x. The CPU code is a naive, single threaded code.
It should be possible, for example, via modification of the OPT and TST macros, to perform a different kind of optimization - such as maximum instead of minimum.
The domain (and grid) dimensions and granularity to search over can be modified by the compile time constants such as XNR, XPR, etc.

Thrust vector transformation involving removing vector elements

I have a thrust device_vector divided into chunks of 100 (but altogether contiguous on GPU memory), and i want to remove the last 5 elements of each chunk, without having to reallocate a new device_vector to copy it into.
// Layout in memory before (number of elements in each contiguous subblock listed):
// [ 95 | 5 ][ 95 | 5 ][ 95 | 5 ]........
// Layout in memory after cutting out the last 5 of each chunk (number of elements listed)
// [ 95 ][ 95 ][ 95 ].........
thrust::device_vector v;
// call some function on v;
// so elements 95-99, 195-99, 295-299, etc are removed (assuming 0-based indexing)
How can I correctly implement this? Preferably I would like to avoid allocating a new vector in GPU memory to save the transform into. I understand there are Thrust template functions for dealing with these kinds of operations, but I have trouble stringing them together. Is there something Thrust provides that can do this?
No allocation of the buffer mem means you have to preserve the copying order, which can not be paralleled to fully utilize the GPU hardware.
Here's a version for doing this using Thrust with a buffer mem.
It requires Thrust 1.6.0+ since the lambda expression functor is used on iterators.
#include "thrust/device_vector.h"
#include "thrust/iterator/counting_iterator.h"
#include "thrust/iterator/permutation_iterator.h"
#include "thrust/iterator/transform_iterator.h"
#include "thrust/copy.h"
#include "thrust/functional.h"
using namespace thrust::placeholders;
int main()
{
const int oldChunk = 100, newChunk = 95;
const int size = 10000;
thrust::device_vector<float> v(
thrust::counting_iterator<float>(0),
thrust::counting_iterator<float>(0) + oldChunk * size);
thrust::device_vector<float> buf(newChunk * size);
thrust::copy(
thrust::make_permutation_iterator(
v.begin(),
thrust::make_transform_iterator(
thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0),
_1 / newChunk * oldChunk + _1 % newChunk)),
thrust::make_permutation_iterator(
v.begin(),
thrust::make_transform_iterator(
thrust::counting_iterator<int>(0),
_1 / newChunk * oldChunk + _1 % newChunk))
+ buf.size(),
buf.begin());
return 0;
}
I think the above version may not achieve the highest performance due to the use of mod operator %. For higher performance you may consider the cuBLAS function cublas_geam()
float alpha = 1;
float beta = 0;
cublasSgeam(handle, CUBLAS_OP_N, CUBLAS_OP_N,
newChunk, size,
&alpha,
thrust::raw_pointer_cast(&v[0]), oldChunk,
&beta,
thrust::raw_pointer_cast(&v[0]), oldChunk,
thrust::raw_pointer_cast(&buf[0]), newChunk);