As I know, GPUs switch between warps to hide the memory latency. But I wonder in which condition, a warp will be switched out? For example, if a warp perform a load, and the data is there in the cache already. So is the warp switched out or continue the next computation? What happens if there are two consecutive adds?
Thanks
First of all, once a thread block is launched on a multiprocessor (SM), all of its warps are resident until they all exit the kernel. Thus a block is not launched until there are sufficient registers for all warps of the block, and until there is enough free shared memory for the block.
So warps are never "switched out" -- there is no inter-warp context switching in the traditional sense of the word, where a context switch requires saving registers to memory and restoring them.
The SM does, however, choose instructions to issue from among all resident warps. In fact, the SM is more likely to issue two instructions in a row from different warps than from the same warp, no matter what type of instruction they are, regardless of how much ILP (instruction-level parallelism) there is. Not doing so would expose the SM to dependency stalls. Even "fast" instructions like adds have a non-zero latency, because the arithmetic pipeline is multiple cycles long. On Fermi, for example, the hardware can issue 2 or more warp-instructions per cycle (peak), and the arithmetic pipeline latency is ~12 cycles. Therefore you need multiple warps in flight just to hide arithmetic latency, not just memory latency.
In general, the details of warp scheduling are architecture dependent, not publicly documented, and pretty much guaranteed to change over time. The CUDA programming model is independent of the scheduling algorithm, and you should not rely on it in your software.
Related
I have some doubt about the task scheduling of nvidia GPU.
(1) If a warp of threads in a block(CTA) have finished but there remains other warps running, will this warp wait the others to finish? In other words, all threads in a block(CTA) release their resource when all threads are all finished, is it ok? I think this point should be right,since threads in a block share the shared memory and other resource, these resource allocated in a CTA size manager.
(2) If all threads in a block(CTA) hang-up for some long latency such as global memory access? will a new CTA threads occupy the resource which method like CPU？ In other words, if a block(CTA) has been dispatched to a SM(Streaming Processors), if it will take up the resource until it has finished?
I would be appreciate if someone recommend me some book or articles about the architecture of GPU.Thanks!
The Compute Work Distributor will schedule a thread block (CTA) on a SM only if the SM has sufficient resources for the thread block (shared memory, warps, registers, barriers, ...). Thread block level resources such shared memory are allocated. The allocate creates sufficient warps for all threads in the thread block. The resource manager allocates warps round robin to the SM sub-partitions. Each SM subpartition contains a warp scheduler, register file, and execution units. Once a warp is allocated to a subpartition it will remain on the subpartition until it completes or is pre-empted by a context switch (Pascal architecture). On context switch restore the warp will be restored to the same SM same warp-id.
When all threads in warp have completed the warp scheduler waits for all outstanding instructions issued by the warp to complete and then the resource manager releases the warp level resources which include warp-id and register file.
When all warps in a thread block complete then block level resources are released and the SM notifies the Compute Work Distributor that the block has completed.
Once a warp is allocated to a subpartition and all resources are allocated the warp is considered active meaning that the warp scheduler is actively tracking the state of the warp. On each cycle the warp scheduler determine which active warps are stalled and which are eligible to issue an instruction. The warp scheduler picks the highest priority eligible warp and issues 1-2 consecutive instructions from the warp. The rules for dual-issue are specific to each architecture. If a warp issues a memory load it can continue to executed independent instructions until it reaches a dependent instruction. The warp will then report stalled until the load completes. The same is true for dependent math instructions. The SM architecture is designed to hide both ALU and memory latency by switching per cycle between warps.
This answer does not use the term CUDA core as this introduces an incorrect mental model. CUDA cores are pipelined single precision floating point/integer execution units. The issue rate and dependency latency is specific to each architecture. Each SM subpartition and SM has other execution units including load/store units, double precision floating point units, half precision floating point units, branch units, etc.
I recommend this article. It's somewhat outdated, but I think it is a good starting point. The article targets Kepler architecture, so the most recent one, Pascal, may have some discrepancies in their behavior.
Answers for your specific questions (based on the article):
Q1. Do threads in a block release their resource only after all threads in the block finish running?
Yes. A warp that finished running while other warps in the same block didn't still acquires its resources such as registers and shared memory.
Q2. When every threads in a block all hang up, will it still occupy the resources? Or, does a new block of threads take over the resources?
You are asking whether a block can be preempted. I've searched through web and got the answer from here.
On compute capabilities < 3.2 blocks are never preempted.
On compute capabilities 3.2+ the only two instances when blocks can be preempted are during device-side kernel launch (dynamic parallelism) or single-gpu debugging.
So blocks don't give up their resources when stalled by some global memory access. Rather than expecting the stalled warps to be preempted, you should design your CUDA code so that there are plenty of warps resident in an SM, waiting to be dispatched. In this case even when some warps are waiting global memory access to finish, schedulers can launch other threads, effectively hiding latencies.
The title can't hold the whole question: I have a kernel doing a stream compaction, after which it continues using less number of threads.
I know one way to avoid execution of unused threads: returning and executing a second kernel with smaller block size.
What I'm asking is, provided unused threads diverge and end (return), and provided they align in complete warps, can I safely assume they won't waste execution?
Is there a common practice for this, other than splitting in two consecutive kernel execution?
Thank you very much!
The unit of execution scheduling and resource scheduling within the SM is the warp - groups of 32 threads.
It is perfectly legal to retire threads in any order using return within your kernel code. However there are at least 2 considerations:
The usage of __syncthreads() in device code depends on having every thread in the block participating. So if a thread hits a return statement, that thread could not possibly participate in a future __syncthreads() statement, and so usage of __syncthreads() after one or more threads have retired is illegal.
From an execution efficiency standpoint (and also from a resource scheduling standpoint, although this latter concept is not well documented and somewhat involved to prove), a warp will still consume execution (and other) resources, until all threads in the warp have retired.
If you can retire your threads in warp units, and don't require the usage of __syncthreads() you should be able to make fairly efficient usage of the GPU resources even in a threadblock that retires some warps.
For completeness, a threadblock's dimensions are defined at kernel launch time, and they cannot and do not change at any point thereafter. All threadblocks have threads that eventually retire. The concept of retiring threads does not change a threadblock's dimensions, in my usage here (and consistent with usage of __syncthreads()).
Although probably not related to your question directly, CUDA Dynamic Parallelism could be another methodology to allow a threadblock to "manage" dynamically varying execution resources. However for a given threadblock itself, all of the above comments apply in the CDP case as well.
Ok I know that related questions have been asked over and over again and I read pretty much everything I found about this, but things are still unclear. Probably also because I found and read things contradicting each other (maybe because, being from different times, they referred to devices with different compute capability, between which there seems to be quite a gap). I am looking to be more efficient, to reduce my execution time and thus I need to know exactly how many threads/warps/blocks can run at once in parallel. Also I was thinking of generalizing this and calculating an optimal number of threads and blocks to pass to my kernel based only on the number of operations I know I have to do (for simpler programs) and the system specs.
I have a GTX 550Ti, btw with compute capability 2.1.
4 SMs x 48 cores = 192 CUDA cores.
Ok so what's unclear to me is:
Can more than 1 block run AT ONCE (in parallel) on a multiprocessor (SM)? I read that up to 8 blocks can be assigned to a SM, but nothing as to how they're ran. From the fact that my max number of threads per SM (1536) is barely larger than my max number of threads per block (1024) I would think that blocks aren't ran in parallel (maybe 1 and a half?). Or at least not if I have a max number of threads on them. Also if I set the number of blocks to, let's say 4 (my number of SMs), will they be sent to a different SM each?
Or I can't really control how all this is distributed on the hardware and then this is a moot point, my execution time will vary based on the whims of my device ...
Secondly, I know that a block will divide it's threads into groups of 32 threads that run in parallel, called warps. Now these warps (presuming they have no relation to each other) can be ran in parallel aswell? Because in the Fermi architecture it states that 2 warps are executed concurrently, sending one instruction from each warp to a group of 16 (?) cores, while somewhere else i read that each core handles a warp, which would explain the 1536 max threads (32*48) but seems a bit much. Can 1 CUDA core handle 32 threads concurrently?
On a simpler note, what I'm asking is: (for ex) if I want to sum 2 vectors in a third one, what length should I give them (nr of operations) and how should I split them in blocks and threads for my device to work concurrently (in parallel) at full capacity (without having idle cores or SMs).
I'm sorry if this was asked before and I didn't get it or didn't see it. Hope you can help me. Thank you!
The distribution and parallel execution of work are determined by the launch configuration and the device. The launch configuration states the grid dimensions, block dimensions, registers per thread, and shared memory per block. Based upon this information and the device you can determine the number of blocks and warps that can execute on the device concurrently. When developing a kernel you usually look at the ratio of warps that can be active on the SM to the maximum number of warps per SM for the device. This is called the theoretical occupancy. The CUDA Occupancy Calculator can be used to investigate different launch configurations.
When a grid is launched the compute work distributor will rasterize the grid and distribute thread blocks to SMs and SM resources will be allocated for the thread block. Multiple thread blocks can execute simultaneously on the SM if the SM has sufficient resources.
In order to launch a warp, the SM assigns the warp to a warp scheduler and allocates registers for the warp. At this point the warp is considered an active warp.
Each warp scheduler manages a set of warps (24 on Fermi, 16 on Kepler). Warps that are not stalled are called eligible warps. On each cycle the warp scheduler picks an eligible warp and issue instruction(s) for the warp to execution units such as int/fp units, double precision floating point units, special function units, branch resolution units, and load store units. The execution units are pipelined allowing many warps to have 1 or more instructions in flight each cycle. Warps can be stalled on instruction fetch, data dependencies, execution dependencies, barriers, etc.
Each kernel has a different optimal launch configuration. Tools such as Nsight Visual Studio Edition and the NVIDIA Visual Profiler can help you tune your launch configuration. I recommend that you try to write your code in a flexible manner so you can try multiple launch configurations. I would start by using a configuration that gives you at least 50% occupancy then try increasing and decreasing the occupancy.
Answers to each Question
Q: Can more than 1 block run AT ONCE (in parallel) on a multiprocessor (SM)?
Yes, the maximum number is based upon the compute capability of the device. See Tabe 10. Technical Specifications per Compute Capability : Maximum number of residents blocks per multiprocessor to determine the value. In general the launch configuration limits the run time value. See the occupancy calculator or one of the NVIDIA analysis tools for more details.
Q:From the fact that my max number of threads per SM (1536) is barely larger than my max number of threads per block (1024) I would think that blocks aren't ran in parallel (maybe 1 and a half?).
The launch configuration determines the number of blocks per SM. The ratio of maximum threads per block to maximum threads per SM is set to allow developer more flexibility in how they partition work.
Q: If I set the number of blocks to, let's say 4 (my number of SMs), will they be sent to a different SM each? Or I can't really control how all this is distributed on the hardware and then this is a moot point, my execution time will vary based on the whims of my device ...
You have limited control of work distribution. You can artificially control this by limiting occupancy by allocating more shared memory but this is an advanced optimization.
Q: Secondly, I know that a block will divide it's threads into groups of 32 threads that run in parallel, called warps. Now these warps (presuming they have no relation to each other) can be ran in parallel as well?
Yes, warps can run in parallel.
Q: Because in the Fermi architecture it states that 2 warps are executed concurrently
Each Fermi SM has 2 warps schedulers. Each warp scheduler can dispatch instruction(s) for 1 warp each cycle. Instruction execution is pipelined so many warps can have 1 or more instructions in flight every cycle.
Q: Sending one instruction from each warp to a group of 16 (?) cores, while somewhere else i read that each core handles a warp, which would explain the 1536 max threads (32x48) but seems a bit much. Can 1 CUDA core handle 32 threads concurrently?
Yes. CUDA cores is the number of integer and floating point execution units. The SM has other types of execution units which I listed above. The GTX550 is a CC 2.1 device. On each cycle a SM has the potential to dispatch at most 4 instructions (128 threads) per cycle. Depending on the definition of execution the total threads in flight per cycle can range from many hundreds to many thousands.
I am looking to be more efficient, to reduce my execution time and thus I need to know exactly how many threads/warps/blocks can run at once in parallel.
In short, the number of threads/warps/blocks that can run concurrently depends on several factors. The CUDA C Best Practices Guide has a writeup on Execution Configuration Optimizations that explains these factors and provides some tips for reasoning about how to shape your application.
One of the concepts that took a whle to sink in, for me, is the efficiency of the hardware support for context-switching on the CUDA chip.
Consequently, a context-switch occurs on every memory access, allowing calculations to proceed for many contexts alternately while the others wait on theri memory accesses. ne of the ways that GPGPU architectures achieve performance is the ability to parallelize this way, in addition to parallelizing on the multiples cores.
Best performance is achieved when no core is ever waiting on a memory access, and is achieved by having just enough contexts to ensure this happens.
I would like to clear up an execution state with CUDA shared memory and block execution based on the amount of shared memory used per block.
State
I target on GTX480 nvidia card which has 48KB shared memory per block and 15 streaming multiprocessors. So, if i declare a kernel with 15 blocks, each one uses 48KB of shared memory and no other restriction is reached (registers, maximum threads per block etc.) every block is running into one SM(of 15) until the end. In this case is needed only scheduling between warps of the same block.
Question
So, my misunderstanding scenario is:
I call a kernel with 30 blocks so that 2 blocks reside on each SM. Now scheduler on each SM have to deal with warps from different blocks. But only when one block finishes its execution, warps of the other block is executed on SM because of shared memory entire amount (48KB per SM) usage. If this doesn't happen and warps of different blocks scheduling for execution on the same SM the result may be wrong because one block can read values loaded from the other in shared memory. Am i right?
You don't need to worry about this. As you have correctly said, if only one block fits per SM because of the amount of shared memory used, only one block will be scheduled at any one time. So there is no chance of memory corruption caused by overcommitting shared memory.
BTW for performance reasons it is usually better to have at least two blocks running per SM because
during __syncthreads() the SM may idle unnecessary as fewer and fewer warps from the block may still be runnable.
warps of the same block tend to run tightly coupled, so there may be times when all warps wait for memory and other times when all warps perform computations. With more blocks this may even out better, resulting in better ressource utilization overall.
Of course there may be reasons why more shared memory per block gives a larger speedup than running multiple blocks per SM would.
There has been much discussion about how to choose the #blocks & blockSize, but I still missing something. Many of my concerns address this question: How CUDA Blocks/Warps/Threads map onto CUDA Cores? (To simplify the discussion, there is enough perThread & perBlock memory. Memory limits are not an issue here.)
kernelA<<<nBlocks, nThreads>>>(varA,constB, nThreadsTotal);
1) To keep the SM as busy as possible, I should set nThreads to a multiple of warpSize. True?
2) An SM can only execute one kernel at a time. That is all HWcores of that SM are executing only kernelA. (Not some HWcores running kernelA, while others run kernelB.) So if I have only one thread to run, I'm "wasting" the other HWcores. True?
3)If the warp-scheduler issues work in units of warpSize (32 threads), and each SM has 32 HWcores, then the SM would be full utilized. What happens when the SM has 48 HWcores? How can I keep all 48 cores full utilized when the scheduler is issuing work in chunks of 32? (If the previous paragraph is true, wouldn't it be better if the scheduler issued work in units of HWcore size?)
4) It looks like the warp-scheduler queues up 2 tasks at a time. So that when the currently-executing kernel stalls or blocks, the 2nd kernel is swapped in. (It is not clear, but I'll guess the queue here is more than 2 kernels deep.) Is this correct?
5) If my HW has an upper limit of 512 threads-per-block (nThreadsMax), that doesn't mean the kernel with 512 threads will run fastest on one block. (Again, mem not an issue.) There is a good chance I'll get better performance if I spread the 512-thread kernel across many blocks, not just one. The block is executed on one or many SM's. True?
5a) I'm thinking the smaller the better, but does it matter how small I make nBlocks? The question is, how to choose the value of nBlocks that is decent? (Not necessarily optimal.) Is there a mathematical approach to choosing nBlocks, or is it simply trial-n-err.
1) Yes.
2) CC 2.0 - 3.0 devices can execute up to 16 grids concurrently. Each SM is limited to 8 blocks so in order to reach full concurrency the device has to have at least 2 SMs.
3) Yes the warp schedulers select and issue warps at at time. Forget the concept of CUDA cores they are irrelevant. In order to hide latency you need to have high instruction level parallelism or a high occupancy. It is recommended to have >25% for CC 1.x and >50% for CC >= 2.0. In general CC 3.0 requires higher occupancy than 2.0 devices due to the doubling of schedulers but only a 33% increase in warps per SM. The Nsight VSE Issue Efficiency experiment is the best way to determine if you had sufficient warps to hide instruction and memory latency. Unfortunately, the Visual Profiler does not have this metric.
4) The warp scheduler algorithm is not documented; however, it does not consider which grid the thread block originated. For CC 2.x and 3.0 devices the CUDA work distributor will distribute all blocks from a grid before distributing blocks from the next grid; however, this is not guaranteed by the programming model.
5) In order to keep the SM busy you have to have sufficient blocks to fill the device. After that you want to make sure you have sufficient warps to reach a reasonable occupancy. There are both pros and cons to using large thread blocks. Large thread blocks in general use less instruction cache and have smaller footprints on cache; however, large thread blocks stall at syncthreads (SM can become less efficient as there are less warps to choose from) and tend to keep instructions executing on similar execution units. I recommend trying 128 or 256 threads per thread block to start. There are good reasons for both larger and smaller thread blocks.
5a) Use the occupancy calculator. Picking too large of a thread block size will often cause you to be limited by registers. Picking too small of a thread block size can find you limited by shared memory or the 8 blocks per SM limit.
Let me try to answer your questions one by one.
That is correct.
What do you mean exactly by "HWcores"? The first part of your statement is correct.
According to the NVIDIA Fermi Compute Architecture Whitepaper: "The SM schedules threads in groups of 32 parallel threads called warps. Each SM features two warp schedulers and two instruction dispatch units, allowing two warps to be issued and executed concurrently. Fermi’s dual warp scheduler selects two warps, and issues one instruction from each warp to a group of sixteen cores, sixteen load/store units, or four SFUs. Because warps execute independently, Fermi’s scheduler does not need to check for dependencies from within the instruction stream".
Furthermore, the NVIDIA Keppler Architecture Whitepaper states: "Kepler’s quad warp scheduler selects four warps, and two independent instructions per warp can be dispatched each cycle."
The "excess" cores are therefore used by scheduling more than one warp at a time.
The warp scheduler schedules warps of the same kernel, not different kernels.
Not quite true: Each block is locked in to a single SM, since that's where its shared memory resides.
That's a tricky issue and depends on how your kernel is implemented. You may want to have a look at the nVidia Webinar Better Performance at Lower Occupancy by Vasily Volkov which explains some of the more important issues. Primarily, though, I would suggest you choose your thread count to improve occupancy, using the CUDA Occupancy Calculator.