How to optimize omp parallelization when batching - c++

Question

I am generating class Objects and putting them into std::vector. Before adding, I need to check if they intersect with the already generated objects. As I plan to have millions of them, I need to parallelize this function as it takes a lot of time (The function must check each new object against all previously generated).
Unfortunately, the speed increase is not significant. The profiler also shows very low efficiency (all overhead). Any advise would be appreciated.
bool
Generator::_check_cube (std::vector<Cube> &cubes, const cube &cube)
{
auto ptr_cube = &cube;
auto npol = cubes.size();
auto ptr_cubes = cubes.data();
const auto nthreads = omp_get_max_threads();
bool check = false;
#pragma omp parallel shared (ptr_cube, ptr_cubes, npol, check)
{
#pragma omp single nowait
{
const auto batch_size = npol / nthreads;
for (int32_t i = 0; i < nthreads; i++)
{
const auto bstart = batch_size * i;
const auto bend = ((bstart + batch_size) > npol) ? npol : bstart + batch_size;
#pragma omp task firstprivate(i, bstart, bend) shared (check)
{
struct bd bd1{}, bd2{};
bd1 = allocate_bd();
bd2 = allocate_bd();
for (auto j = bstart; j < bend; j++)
{
bool loc_check;
#pragma omp atomic read
loc_check = check;
if (loc_check) break;
if (ptr_cube->cube_intersecting(ptr_cubes[j], &bd1, &bd2))
{
#pragma omp atomic write
check = true;
break;
}
}
free_bd(&bd1);
free_bd(&bd2);
}
}
}
}
return check;
}
UPDATE: The Cube is actually made of smaller objects Cuboids, each of them have size (L, W, H), position coordinates and rotation. The intersect function:
bool
Cube::cube_intersecting(Cube &other, struct bd *bd1, struct bd *bd2) const
{
const auto nom = number_of_cuboids();
const auto onom = other.number_of_cuboids();
for (int32_t i = 0; i < nom; i++)
{
get_mcoord(i, bd1);
for (int32_t j = 0; j < onom; j++)
{
other.get_mcoord(j, bd2);
if (check_gjk_intersection(bd1, bd2))
{
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
//get_mcoord calculates vertices of the cuboids
void
Cube::get_mcoord(int32_t index, struct bd *bd) const
{
for (int32_t i = 0; i < 8; i++)
{
for (int32_t j = 0; j < 3; j++)
{
bd->coord[i][j] = _cuboids[index].get_coord(i)[j];
}
}
}
inline struct bd
allocate_bd()
{
struct bd bd{};
bd.numpoints = 8;
bd.coord = (double **) malloc(8 * sizeof(double *));
for (int32_t i = 0; i < 8; i++)
{
bd.coord[i] = (double *) malloc(3 * sizeof(double));
}
return bd;
}
Typical values: npol > 1 million, threads 32, and each npol Cube consists of 1 - 3 smaller cuboids which are directly checked against other if intersect.

Answer 1

The problem with your search is that OpenMP really likes static loops, where the number of iterations is predetermined. Thus, maybe one task will break early, but all the other will go through their full search.
With recent versions of OpenMP (5, I think) there is a solution for that.
(Not sure about this one: Make your tasks much more fine-grained, for instance one for each intersection test);
Spawn your tasks in a taskloop;
Once you find your intersection (or any condition that causes you to break), do cancel taskloop.
Small problem: cancelling is disabled by default. Set the environment variable OMP_CANCELLATION to true.

Answer 2

Do you have more intersections being true or more being false ? If most are true, you're flooding your hardware with requests to write to a shared resource, and what you are doing is essentially sequential. One way to address this is to avoid using a shared resource so there is no mutex and you let all threads run and at the end you take a decision given the results; this will likely run faster but the benefit depends also on arbitrary choices such as few metrics (eg., nthreads, ncuboids).
It is possible that on another architecture (eg., gpu), your algorithm works well as it is. I may be worth it to benchmark it on a gpu, and see if you will benefit from that migration, given the production sizes (millions of cuboids, 24 dimensions).
You also have a complexity problem, which is, for every new cuboid you compare up to the whole set of existing cuboids. One way to address this is to gather all the cuboids size (range) by dimension and order them, and add the new cuboids ranges ordered. If there is intersection in one dimension, you test the next one etc. You also can runs them in parallel. Before running through the ranges, you test if you are hitting inside the global range, if not it's useless to test locally the intersection.
Here and in general you want to parallelize with minimum of dependency (shared resources, mutex). So you want to try to find a point of view where this will happen. Parallelising over dimensions over ordered ranges (segments) might be better that parallelizing over cuboids.
Algorithms and benefits of parallelism also depend on the values of your objects. This does not mean that complexity predictions are not relevant, but that one may find a smarter approach given those values.

Answer 3

I think your code is memory bound, so its bottleneck is memory read/write not calculations. This can be the main reason of poor speed increase. As already mentioned by #Soleil a different hardware (GPU) can be beneficial here.
You mentioned in the comments that Generator::_check_cub called many times. To reduce OpenMP overheads my suggestion is moving the parallel region out of this function, you can even use it in your main function:
main(){
#pragma omp parallel
#pragma omp single nowait
{
//your code
}
}
In this case you have to use #pragma omp taskwait to wait for the tasks to complete.
for (int32_t i = 0; i < nthreads; i++)
{
#pragma omp task default(none) firstprivate(...) shared (..)
{
//your code comes here
}
}
#pragma omp taskwait
I also suggest using default(none) clause in #pragma omp task directive so you have to explicitly tell the sharing attribute of all your variables.
Do you really need function get_mcoord? It seems a redunant memory copy to me. I think it may be better to write a check_gjk_intersection function which takes _cuboids or its indices as parameters. In this case you get rid of many memory allocations/deallocations of bd1 and bd2, which also can be time consuming as #Victor pointed out.