用于多个内核的Cuda流处理

Question

Hi a few questions regarding Cuda stream processing for multiple kernels. Assume s streams and a kernels in a 3.5 capable kepler device, where s <= 32. kernel uses a dev_input array of size n and a dev output array of size s*n. kernel reads data from input array, stores its value in a register, manipulates it and writes its result back to dev_output at the position s*n + tid.

We aim to run the same kernel s times using one of the n streams each time. Similar to the simpleHyperQ example. Can you comment if and how any of the following affects concurrency please?

1. dev_input and dev_output are not pinned;
2. dev_input as it is vs dev_input size s*n, where each kernel reads unique data (no read conflicts)
3. kernels read data from constant memory
4. 10kb of shared memory are allocated per block.
5. kernel uses 60 registers

Any good comments will be appreciated...!!!

cheers, Thanasio

Robert, thanks a lot for your detailed answer. It has been very helpful. I edited 4, it is 10kb per block. So in my situation, i launch grids of 61 blocks and 256 threads. The kernels are rather computationally bound. I launch 8 streams of the same kernel. Profile them and then i see a very good overlap between the first two and then it gets worse and worse. The kernel execution time is around 6ms. After the first two streams execute almost perfectly concurrent the rest have a 3ms distance between them. Regarding 5, i use a K20 which has a 255 register file. So i would not expect drawbacks from there. I really cannot understand why i do not achieve concurrency equivalent to what is specified for gk110s..

Please take a look at the following link. There is an image called kF.png .It shows the profiler output for the streams..!!!

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/531740/cuda-programming-and-performance/concurrent-streams-and-hyperq-for-k20/

Answer 1

Concurrency amongst kernels depends upon a number of factors, but one that many people overlook is simply the size of the kernel (ie number of blocks in the grid.) Kernels that are of a size that can effectively utilize the GPU by themselves will not generally run concurrently to a large degree, and there would be little throughput advantage even if they did. The work distributor inside the GPU will generally begin distributing blocks as soon as a kernel is launched, so if one kernel is launched before another, and both have a large number of blocks, then the first kernel will generally occupy the GPU until it is nearly complete, at which point blocks of the second kernel will then get scheduled and executed, perhaps with a small amount of "concurrent overlap".

The main point is that kernels that have enough blocks to "fill up the GPU" will prevent other kernels from actually executing, and apart from scheduling, this isn't any different on a compute 3.5 device. In addition, rather than just specifying a few parameters for the kernel as a whole, also specifying launch parameters and statistics (such as register usage, shared mem usage, etc.) at the block level are helpful for providing crisp answers. The benefits of the compute 3.5 architecture in this area will still mainly come from "small" kernels of "few" blocks, attempting to execute together. Compute 3.5 has some advantages there.

You should also review the answer to this question .

1. When global memory used by the kernel is not pinned, it affects the speed of data transfer, and also the ability to overlap copy and compute but does not affect the ability of two kernels to execute concurrently. Nevertheless, the limitation on copy and compute overlap may skew the behavior of your application.
2. There shouldn't be "read conflicts", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Two independent threads/blocks/grids are allowed to read the same location in global memory. Generally this will get sorted out at the L2 cache level. As long as we are talking about just reads there should be no conflict, and no particular effect on concurrency.
3. Constant memory is a limited resource, shared amongst all kernels executing on the device (try running deviceQuery). If you have not exceeded the total device limit, then the only issue will be one of utilization of the constant cache, and things like cache thrashing. Apart from this secondary relationship, there is no direct effect on concurrency.
4. It would be more instructive to identify the amount of shared memory per block rather than per kernel. This will directly affect how many blocks can be scheduled on a SM. But answering this question would be much crisper also if you specified the launch configuration of each kernel, as well as the relative timing of the launch invocations. If shared memory happened to be the limiting factor in scheduling, then you can divide the total available shared memory per SM by the amount used by each kernel, to get an idea of the possible concurrency based on this. My own opinion is that number of blocks in each grid is likely to be a bigger issue, unless you have kernels that use 10k per grid but only have a few blocks in the whole grid.
5. My comments here would be nearly the same as my response to 4. Take a look at deviceQuery for your device, and if registers became a limiting factor in scheduling blocks on each SM, then you could divide available registers per SM by the register usage per kernel (again, it makes a lot more sense to talk about register usage per block and the number of blocks in the kernel) to discover what the limit might be.

Again, if you have reasonable sized kernels (hundreds or thousands of blocks, or more) then the scheduling of blocks by the work distributor is most likely going to be the dominant factor in the amount of concurrency between kernels.

EDIT: in response to new information posted in the question. I've looked at the kF.png

1. First let's analyze from a blocks per SM perspective. CC 3.5 allows 16 "open" or currently scheduled blocks per SM. If you are launching 2 kernels of 61 blocks each, that may well be enough to fill the "ready-to-go" queue on the CC 3.5 device. Stated another way, the GPU can handle 2 of these kernels at a time. As the blocks of one of those kernels "drains" then another kernel is scheduled by the work distributor. The blocks of the first kernel "drain" sufficiently in about half the total time, so that the next kernel gets scheduled about halfway through the completion of the first 2 kernels, so at any given point (draw a vertical line on the timeline) you have either 2 or 3 kernels executing simultaneously. (The 3rd kernel launched overlaps the first 2 by about 50% according to the graph, I don't agree with your statement that there is a 3ms distance between each successive kernel launch). If we say that at peak we have 3 kernels scheduled (there are plenty of vertical lines that will intersect 3 kernel timelines) and each kernel has ~60 blocks, then that is about 180 blocks. Your K20 has 13 SMs and each SM can have at most 16 blocks scheduled on it . This means at peak you have about 180 blocks scheduled (perhaps) vs. a theoretical peak of 16*13 = 208. So you're pretty close to max here, and there's not much more that you could possibly get. But maybe you think you're only getting 120/208, I don't know.
2. Now let's take a look from a shared memory perspective. A key question is what is the setting of your L1/shared split? I believe it defaults to 48KB of shared memory per SM, but if you've changed this setting that will be pretty important. Regardless, according to your statement each block scheduled will use 10KB of shared memory. This means we would max out around 4 blocks scheduled per SM, or 4*13 total blocks = 52 blocks max that can be scheduled at any given time. You're clearly exceeding this number, so probably I don't have enough information about the shared memory usage by your kernels. If you're really using 10kb/block, this would more or less preclude you from having more than one kernel's worth of threadblocks executing at a time. There could still be some overlap, and I believe this is likely to be the actual limiting factor in your application. The first kernel of 60 blocks gets scheduled. After a few blocks drain (or perhaps because the 2 kernels were launched close enough together) the second kernel begins to get scheduled, so nearly simultaneously. Then we have to wait a while for about a kernel's worth of blocks to drain before the 3rd kernel can get scheduled, this may well be at the 50% point as indicated in the timeline.

Anyway I think the analyses 1 and 2 above clearly suggest you're getting most of the capability out of the device, based on the limitations inherent in your kernel structure. (We could do a similar analysis based on registers to discover if that is a significant limiting factor.) Regarding this statement: "I really cannot understand why i do not achieve concurrency equivalent to what is specified for gk110s.." I hope you see that the concurrency spec (eg 32 kernels) is a maximum spec, and in most cases you are going to run into some other kind of machine limit before you hit the limit on the maximum number of kernels that can execute simultaneously.

EDIT: regarding documentation and resources, the answer I linked to above from Greg Smith provides some resource links. Here are a few more:

• The C programming guide has a section on Asynchronous Concurrent Execution .
• GPU Concurrency and Streams presentation by Dr. Steve Rennich at NVIDIA is on the NVIDIA webinar page

Answer 2

My experience with HyperQ so far is 2-3 (3.5) times parallellization of my kernels, as the kernels usually are larger for a little more complex calculations. With small kernels its a different story, but usually the kernels are more complicated.

This is also answered by Nvidia in their cuda 5.0 documentation that more complex kernels will take down the amount of parallellization.

But still, GK110 has a great advantage just allowing this.