I'm running this neat little gravity simulation and in serial execution it takes a little more than 4 minutes, when i parallelize one loop inside a it increases to about 7 minutes and if i try parallelizing more loops it increases to more than 20 minutes. I'm posting a slightly shortened version without some initializations but I think they don't matter. I'm posting the 7 minute version however with some comments where i wanted to add parallelization to loops. Thank you for helping me with my messy code.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <omp.h>
#define numb 1000
int main(){
double pos[numb][3],a[numb][3],a_local[3],v[numb][3];
memset(v, 0.0, numb*3*sizeof(double));
double richtung[3];
double t,deltat=0.0,r12 = 0.0,endt=10.;
unsigned seed;
int tcount=0;
#pragma omp parallel private(seed) shared(pos)
{
seed = 25235 + 16*omp_get_thread_num();
#pragma omp for
for(int i=0;i<numb;i++){
for(int j=0;j<3;j++){
pos[i][j] = (double) (rand_r(&seed) % 100000 - 50000);
}
}
}
for(t=0.;t<endt;t+=deltat){
printf("\r%le", t);
tcount++;
#pragma omp parallel for shared(pos,v)
for(int id=0; id<numb; id++){
for(int l=0;l<3;l++){
pos[id][l] = pos[id][l]+(0.5*deltat*v[id][l]);
v[id][l] = v[id][l]+a[id][l]*(deltat);
}
}
memset(a, 0.0, numb*3*sizeof(double));
memset(a_local, 0.0, 3*sizeof(double));
#pragma omp parallel for private(r12,richtung) shared(a,pos)
for(int id=0; id <numb; ++id){
for(int id2=0; id2<id; id2++){
for(int k=0;k<3;k++){
r12 += sqrt((pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k])*(pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k]));
}
for(int k=0; k<3;k++){
richtung[k] = (-1.e10)*(pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k])/r12;
a[id][k] += richtung[k]/(((r12)*(r12)));
a_local[k] += (-1.0)*richtung[k]/(((r12)*(r12)));
#pragma omp critical
{
a[id2][k] += a_local[k];
}
}
r12=0.0;
}
}
#pragma omp parallel for shared(pos)
for(int id =0; id<numb; id++){
for(int k=0;k<3;k++){
pos[id][k] = pos[id][k]+(0.5*deltat*v[id][k]);
}
}
deltat= 0.01;
}
return 0;
}
I'm using
g++ -fopenmp -o test_grav test_grav.c
to compile the code and I'm measuring time in the shell just by
time ./test_grav.
When I used
get_numb_threads()
to get the number of threads it displayed 4. top also shows more than 300% (sometimes ~380%) cpu usage. Interesting little fact if I start the parallel region before the time-loop (meaning the most outer for-loop) and without any actual #pragma omp for it is equivalent to making one parallel region for every major (the three second to most outer loops) loop. So I think it is an optimization thing, but I don't know how to solve it. Can anyone help me?
Edit: I made the example verifiable and lowered numbers like numb to make it better testable but the problem still occurs. Even when I remove the critical region as suggested by TheQuantumPhysicist, just not as severely.
I believe that critical section is the cause of the problem. Consider taking all critical sections outside the parallelized loop and running them after the parallelization is over.
Try this:
#pragma omp parallel shared(a,pos)
{
#pragma omp for private(id2,k,r12,richtung,a_local)
for(id=0; id <numb; ++id){
for(id2=0; id2<id; id2++){
for(k=0;k<3;k++){
r12 += sqrt((pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k])*(pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k]));
}
for(k =0; k<3;k++){
richtung[k] = (-1.e10)*(pos[id][k]-pos[id2][k])/r12;
a[id][k] += richtung[k]/(((r12)*(r12))+epsilon);
a_local[k]+= richtung[k]/(((r12)*(r12))+epsilon)*(-1.0);
}
}
}
}
for(id=0; id <numb; ++id){
for(id2=0; id2<id; id2++){
for(k=0;k<3;k++){
a[id2][k] += a_local[k];
}
}
}
Critical sections will lead to locking and blocking. If you can keep these sections linear, you'll win a lot in performance.
Notice that I'm talking about a syntactic solution, which I don't know whether it works for your case. But to be clear: If every point in your series depends on the next one, then parallelizing is not a solution for you; at least simple parallelization using OpenMP.
Related
I'm currently trying to use OpenMP for parallel computing.
I've written the following basic code.
However it returns the following warning:
warning #2901: [omp] OpenMP is not active; all OpenMP directives will be ignored.
Changing the number of threads does not change the required running time since omp.h is ignored for some reason which is unclear to me.
Can someone help me out?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
#include <math.h>
int main(void)
{
double ts;
double something;
clock_t begin = clock();
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(4)
#pragma omp parallel for
for (int i = 0; i<pow(10,7);i++)
{
something=sqrt(123456);
}
clock_t end = clock();
ts = (double)(end - begin) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Time elpased is %f seconds", ts);
}
In order to get OpenMP support you need to explicitly tell your compiler.
g++, gcc and clang need the option -fopenmp
mvsc needs the option /openmp (more info here if you use visual studio)
Aside from the obvious having to compile with -fopenmp flag your code has some problem worth pointing out, namely:
To measure time use omp_get_wtime() instead of clock() (it will give you the number of clock ticks accumulated across all threads).
The other problem is:
#pragma omp parallel num_threads(4)
#pragma omp parallel for
for (int i = 0; i<pow(10,7);i++)
{
something=sqrt(123456);
}
the iterations of the loop are not being assigned to threads as you wanted. Because you have added again the clause parallel to #pragma omp for, and assuming that you have nested parallelism disabled, which by default it is, each of the threads created in the outer parallel region will execute "sequentially" the code within that region. Consequently, for a n = 6 (i.e., pow(10,7) = 6) and number of threads = 4, you would have the following block of code:
for (int i=0; i<n; i++) {
something=sqrt(123456);
}
being executed 6 x 4 = 24 times (i.e., the total number of loop iterations multiple by the total number of threads). For a more in depth explanation check this SO Thread about a similar issue. Nevertheless, the image below provides a visualization of the essential:
To fix this adapt your code to the following:
#pragma omp parallel for num_threads(4)
for (int i = 0; i<pow(10,7);i++)
{
something=sqrt(123456);
}
I am trying to add an openMP parallelization into quite a big Project and I found out the openMP does too much synchronization outside the parallel blocks.
This synchronization is done for all of the variables, even those not used in the parallel block and it is done continuously, not only before entering the block.
I made an example proving this:
#include <cmath>
int main()
{
double dummy1 = 1.234;
int const size = 1000000;
int const size1 = 2500;
int const size2 = 500;
for(unsigned int i=0; i<size; ++i){
//for (unsigned int j=0; j<size1; j++){
// dummy1 = pow(dummy1/2 + 1, 1.5);
//}
#pragma omp parallel for
for (unsigned int j=0; j<size2; j++){
double dummy2 = 2.345;
dummy2 = pow(dummy2/2 + 1, 1.5);
}
}
}
If I run this code (with the for cycle commented), the runtimes are 6.75s with parallelization and 30.6s without. Great.
But if I uncomment the for cycle and run it again, the excessive synchronization kicks in and I get results 67.9s with parallelization and 73s without. If I increase size1 I even get slower results with parallelization than without it.
Is there a way to disable this synchronization and force it only before the second for cycle? Or any other way how to improve the speed?
Note that the outer neither the first for cycle are in the real example parallelizable. The outer one is in fact a ODE solver and the first inner one updating of loads of inner values.
I am using gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5
Thanks for Your answers.
In the end the solution for my problem was specifying number of threads = number of processor cores. It seems the hyperthreading was causing the problems. So using (my processor has 4 real cores)
#pragma omp parallel for num_threads(4)
I get times 8.7s without the first for loop and 51.9s with it. There is still about 1.2s overhead, but that is acceptable. Using default (8 threads)
#pragma omp parallel for
the times are 6.65s and 68s. Here the overhead is about 19s.
So the hyperthreading helps if no other code is present, but when it is it might not always be a good idea to use it.
I am a newbie to multithreading. I am trying to design a program that solves a sparse matrix. In my code I call Vector Vector dot product and Matix vector product as subroutines many times to arrive at the final solution. I am trying to parallelise the code using open MP (Especially the above two sub routines.)
I also have sequential codes in between which i donot intend to parallelise.
My question is how do I handle the threads created when the sub routine is called. Should I put a barrier at the end of every sub routine call.
Also where should I set the number of threads?
Mat_Vec_Mult(MAT,x0,rm);
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(static)
for(int i=0;i<numcols;i++)
rm[i] = b[i] - rm[i];
#pragma omp barrier
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(static)
for(int i=0;i<numcols;i++)
xm[i] = x0[i];
#pragma omp barrier
double* pm = (double*) malloc(numcols*sizeof(double));
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(static)
for(int i=0;i<numcols;i++)
pm[i] = rm[i];
#pragma omp barrier
scalarProd(rm,rm,numcols);
Thanks
EDIT:
for the scalar dotproduct, I am using the following piece of code:
double scalarProd(double* vec1, double* vec2, int n){
double prod = 0.0;
int chunk = 10;
int i;
//double* c = (double*) malloc(n*sizeof(double));
omp_set_num_threads(4);
// #pragma omp parallel shared(vec1,vec2,c,prod) private(i)
#pragma omp parallel
{
double pprod = 0.0;
#pragma omp for
for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
pprod += vec1[i]*vec2[i];
}
//#pragma omp for reduction (+:prod)
#pragma omp critical
for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
prod += pprod;
}
}
return prod;
}
I have now added the time calculation code in my ConjugateGradient function as below:
start_dotprod = omp_get_wtime();
rm_rm_old = scalarProd(rm,rm,MAT->ncols);
run_dotprod = omp_get_wtime() - start_dotprod;
fprintf(timing,"Time taken by rm_rm dot product : %lf \n",run_dotprod);
Observed results : Time taken for the dot product Sequential Version : 0.000007s Parallel Version : 0.002110
I am doing a simple compile using gcc -fopenmp command on Linux OS on my Intel I7 laptop.
I am currently using a matrix of size n = 5000.
I am getting huge speed down overall since the same dot product gets called multiple times till convergence is achieved( around 80k times).
Please suggest some improvements. Any help is much appreciated!
Honestly, I would suggest parallelizing at a higher level. By this I mean trying to minimize the number of #pragma omp parallels you are using. Every time you try and split up the work among your threads, there is an OpenMP overhead. Try and avoid this whenever possible.
So in your case at the very least I would try:
Mat_Vec_Mult(MAT,x0,rm);
double* pm = (double*) malloc(numcols*sizeof(double)); // must be performed once outside of parallel region
// all threads forked and created once here
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(static)
for(int i = 0; i < numcols; i++) {
rm[i] = b[i] - rm[i]; // (1)
xm[i] = x0[i]; // (2) does not require (1)
pm[i] = rm[i]; // (3) requires (1) at this i, not (2)
}
// implicit barrier at the end of omp for
// implicit join of all threads at the end of omp parallel
scalarProd(rm,rm,numcols);
Notice how I show that no barriers are actually necessary between your loops anyway.
If the majority of your time had been spent in this computation stage, you will surely be seeing considerable improvement. However, I'm reasonably confident that the majority of your time is being spent in Mat_Vec_Mult() and maybe also scalarProd(), so the amount of time you'll be saving is probably minimal.
** EDIT **
And as per your edit, I am seeing a few problems. (1) Always compile with -O3 when you are testing performance of your algorithm. (2) You won't be able to improve the runtime of something that takes .000007 sec to complete; that's nearly instantaneous. This goes back to what I said previously: try and parallelize at a higher level. CG Method is inherently a sequential algorithm, but there are certainly research papers developed detailing parallel CG. (3) Your implementation of scalar product is not optimal. Indeed, I suspect your implementation of matrix-vector product is not either. I would personally do the following:
double scalarProd(double* vec1, double* vec2, int n) {
double prod = 0.0;
int i;
// omp_set_num_threads(4); this should be done once during initialization somewhere previously in your program
#pragma omp parallel for private(i) reduction(+:prod)
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
prod += vec1[i]*vec2[i];
}
return prod;
}
(4) There are entire libraries (LAPACK, BLAS, etc) that have highly optimized matrix-vector, vector-vector, etc operations. Any Linear Algebra library must be built upon them. Therefore, I'd suggest looking at using one of those libraries to do your two operations before you start re-creating the wheel here and trying to implement your own.
I m trying to do multi-thread programming on CPU using OpenMP. I have lots of for loops which are good candidate to be parallel. I attached here a part of my code. when I use first #pragma omp parallel for reduction, my code is faster, but when I try to use the same command to parallelize other loops it gets slower. does anyone have any idea why it is like this?
.
.
.
omp_set_dynamic(0);
omp_set_num_threads(4);
float *h1=new float[nvi];
float *h2=new float[npi];
while(tol>0.001)
{
std::fill_n(h2, npi, 0);
int k,i;
float h222=0;
#pragma omp parallel for private(i,k) reduction (+: h222)
for (i=0;i<npi;++i)
{
int p1=ppi[i];
int m = frombus[p1];
for (k=0;k<N;++k)
{
h222 += v[m-1]*v[k]*(G[m-1][k]*cos(del[m-1]-del[k])
+ B[m-1][k]*sin(del[m-1]-del[k]));
}
h2[i]=h222;
}
//*********** h3*****************
std::fill_n(h3, nqi, 0);
float h333=0;
#pragma omp parallel for private(i,k) reduction (+: h333)
for (int i=0;i<nqi;++i)
{
int q1=qi[i];
int m = frombus[q1];
for (int k=0;k<N;++k)
{
h333 += v[m-1]*v[k]*(G[m-1][k]*sin(del[m-1]-del[k])
- B[m-1][k]*cos(del[m-1]-del[k]));
}
h3[i]=h333;
}
.
.
.
}
I don't think your OpenMP code gives the same result as without OpenMP. Let's just concentrate on the h2[i] part of the code (since the h3[i] has the same logic). There is a dependency of h2[i] on the index i (i.e. h2[1] = h2[1] + h2[0]). The OpenMP reduction you're doing won't give the correct result. If you want to do the reduction with OpenMP you need do it on the inner loop like this:
float h222 = 0;
for (int i=0; i<npi; ++i) {
int p1=ppi[i];
int m = frombus[p1];
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:h222)
for (int k=0;k<N; ++k) {
h222 += v[m-1]*v[k]*(G[m-1][k]*cos(del[m-1]-del[k])
+ B[m-1][k]*sin(del[m-1]-del[k]));
}
h2[i] = h222;
}
However, I don't know if that will be very efficient. An alternative method is fill h2[i] in parallel on the outer loop without a reduction and then take care of the dependency in serial. Even though the serial loop is not parallelized it still should have a small effect on the computation time since it does not have the inner loop over k. This should give the same result with and without OpenMP and still be fast.
#pragma omp parallel for
for (int i=0; i<npi; ++i) {
int p1=ppi[i];
int m = frombus[p1];
float h222 = 0;
for (int k=0;k<N; ++k) {
h222 += v[m-1]*v[k]*(G[m-1][k]*cos(del[m-1]-del[k])
+ B[m-1][k]*sin(del[m-1]-del[k]));
}
h2[i] = h222;
}
//take care of the dependency serially
for(int i=1; i<npi; i++) {
h2[i] += h2[i-1];
}
Keep in mind that creating and destroying threads is a time consuming process; clock the execution time for the process and see for yourself. You only use parallel reduction twice which may be faster than a serial reduction, however the initial cost of creating the threads may still be higher. Try parallelizing the outer most loop (if possible) to see if you can obtain a speedup.
I'm sitting with some stuff here trying to make orphaning work, and reduce the overhead by reducing the calls of #pragma omp parallel.
What I'm trying is something like:
#pragma omp parallel default(none) shared(mat,mat2,f,max_iter,tol,N,conv) private(diff,k)
{
#pragma omp master // I'm not against using #pragma omp single or whatever will work
{
while(diff>tol) {
do_work(mat,mat2,f,N);
swap(mat,mat2);
if( !(k%100) ) // Only test stop criteria every 100 iteration
diff = conv[k] = do_more_work(mat,mat2);
k++;
} // end while
} // end master
} // end parallel
The do_work depends on the previous iteration so the while-loop is has to be run sequential.
But I would like to be able to run the ´do_work´ parallel, so it would look something like:
void do_work(double *mat, double *mat2, double *f, int N)
{
int i,j;
double scale = 1/4.0;
#pragma omp for schedule(runtime) // Just so I can test different settings without having to recompile
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
for(j=0;j<N;j++)
mat[i*N+j] = scale*(mat2[(i+1)*N+j]+mat2[(i-1)*N+j] + ... + f[i*N+j]);
}
I hope this can be accomplished some way, I'm just not sure how. So any help I can get is greatly appreciated (also if you're telling me this isn't possible). Btw I'm working with open mp 3.0, the gcc compiler and the sun studio compiler.
The outer parallel region in your original code contains only a serial piece (#pragma omp master), which makes no sense and effectively results in purely serial execution (no parallelism). As do_work() depends on the previous iteration, but you want to run it in parallel, you must use synchronisation. The openmp tool for that is an (explicit or implicit) synchronisation barrier.
For example (code similar to yours):
#pragma omp parallel
for(int j=0; diff>tol; ++j) // must be the same condition for each thread!
#pragma omp for // note: implicit synchronisation after for loop
for(int i=0; i<N; ++i)
work(j,i);
Note that the implicit synchronisation ensures that no thread enters the next j if any thread is still working on the current j.
The alternative
for(int j=0; diff>tol; ++j)
#pragma omp parallel for
for(int i=0; i<N; ++i)
work(j,i);
should be less efficient, as it creates a new team of threads at each iteration, instead of merely synchronising.