Related
I am given a filled array of size WxH and need to create a new array by scaling both the width and the height by a power of 2. For example, 2x3 becomes 8x12 when scaled by 4, 2^2. My goal is to make sure all the old values in the array are placed in the new array such that 1 value in the old array fills up multiple new corresponding parts in the scaled array. For example:
old_array = [[1,2],
[3,4]]
becomes
new_array = [[1,1,2,2],
[1,1,2,2],
[3,3,4,4],
[3,3,4,4]]
when scaled by a factor of 2. Could someone explain to me the logic on how I would go about programming this?
It's actually very simple. I use a vector of vectors for simplicity noting that 2D matrixes are not efficient. However, any 2D matrix class using [] indexing syntax can, and should be for efficiency, substituted.
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
int main()
{
vector<vector<int>> vin{ {1,2},{3,4},{5,6} };
size_t scaleW = 2;
size_t scaleH = 3;
vector<vector<int>> vout(scaleH * vin.size(), vector<int>(scaleW * vin[0].size()));
for (size_t i = 0; i < vout.size(); i++)
for (size_t ii = 0; ii < vout[0].size(); ii++)
vout[i][ii] = vin[i / scaleH][ii / scaleW];
auto x = vout[8][3]; // last element s/b 6
}
Here is my take. It is very similar to #Tudor's but I figure between our two, you can pick what you like or understand best.
First, let's define a suitable 2D array type because C++'s standard library is very lacking in this regard. I've limited myself to a rather simple struct, in case you don't feel comfortable with object oriented programming.
#include <vector>
// using std::vector
struct Array2d
{
unsigned rows, cols;
std::vector<int> data;
};
This print function should give you an idea how the indexing works:
#include <cstdio>
// using std::putchar, std::printf, std::fputs
void print(const Array2d& arr)
{
std::putchar('[');
for(std::size_t row = 0; row < arr.rows; ++row) {
std::putchar('[');
for(std::size_t col = 0; col < arr.cols; ++col)
std::printf("%d, ", arr.data[row * arr.cols + col]);
std::fputs("]\n ", stdout);
}
std::fputs("]\n", stdout);
}
Now to the heart, the array scaling. The amount of nesting is … bothersome.
Array2d scale(const Array2d& in, unsigned rowfactor, unsigned colfactor)
{
Array2d out;
out.rows = in.rows * rowfactor;
out.cols = in.cols * colfactor;
out.data.resize(std::size_t(out.rows) * out.cols);
for(std::size_t inrow = 0; inrow < in.rows; ++inrow) {
for(unsigned rowoff = 0; rowoff < rowfactor; ++rowoff) {
std::size_t outrow = inrow * rowfactor + rowoff;
for(std::size_t incol = 0; incol < in.cols; ++incol) {
std::size_t in_idx = inrow * in.cols + incol;
int inval = in.data[in_idx];
for(unsigned coloff = 0; coloff < colfactor; ++coloff) {
std::size_t outcol = incol * colfactor + coloff;
std::size_t out_idx = outrow * out.cols + outcol;
out.data[out_idx] = inval;
}
}
}
}
return out;
}
Let's pull it all together for a little demonstration:
int main()
{
Array2d in;
in.rows = 2;
in.cols = 3;
in.data.resize(in.rows * in.cols);
for(std::size_t i = 0; i < in.rows * in.cols; ++i)
in.data[i] = static_cast<int>(i);
print(in);
print(scale(in, 3, 2));
}
This prints
[[0, 1, 2, ]
[3, 4, 5, ]
]
[[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
]
To be honest, i'm incredibly bad at algorithms but i gave it a shot.
I am not sure if this can be done using only one matrix, or if it can be done in less time complexity.
Edit: You can estimate the number of operations this will make with W*H*S*S where Sis the scale factor, W is width and H is height of input matrix.
I used 2 matrixes m and r, where m is your input and r is your result/output. All that needs to be done is to copy each element from m at positions [i][j] and turn it into a square of elements with the same value of size scale_factor inside r.
Simply put:
int main()
{
Matrix<int> m(2, 2);
// initial values in your example
m[0][0] = 1;
m[0][1] = 2;
m[1][0] = 3;
m[1][1] = 4;
m.Print();
// pick some scale factor and create the new matrix
unsigned long scale = 2;
Matrix<int> r(m.rows*scale, m.columns*scale);
// i know this is bad but it is the most
// straightforward way of doing this
// it is also the only way i can think of :(
for(unsigned long i1 = 0; i1 < m.rows; i1++)
for(unsigned long j1 = 0; j1 < m.columns; j1++)
for(unsigned long i2 = i1*scale; i2 < (i1+1)*scale; i2++)
for(unsigned long j2 = j1*scale; j2 < (j1+1)*scale; j2++)
r[i2][j2] = m[i1][j1];
// the output in your example
std::cout << "\n\n";
r.Print();
return 0;
}
I do not think it is relevant for the question, but i used a class Matrix to store all the elements of the extended matrix. I know it is a distraction but this is still C++ and we have to manage memory. And what you are trying to achieve with this algorithm needs a lot of memory if the scale_factor is big so i wrapped it up using this:
template <typename type_t>
class Matrix
{
private:
type_t** Data;
public:
// should be private and have Getters but
// that would make the code larger...
unsigned long rows;
unsigned long columns;
// 2d Arrays get big pretty fast with what you are
// trying to do.
Matrix(unsigned long rows, unsigned long columns)
{
this->rows = rows;
this->columns = columns;
Data = new type_t*[rows];
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
Data[i] = new type_t[columns];
}
// It is true, a copy constructor is needed
// as HolyBlackCat pointed out
Matrix(const Matrix& m)
{
rows = m.rows;
columns = m.columns;
Data = new type_t*[rows];
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
Data[i] = new type_t[columns];
for(unsigned long j = 0; j < columns; j++)
Data[i][j] = m[i][j];
}
}
~Matrix()
{
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
delete [] Data[i];
delete [] Data;
}
void Print()
{
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
for(unsigned long j = 0; j < columns; j++)
std::cout << Data[i][j] << " ";
std::cout << "\n";
}
}
type_t* operator [] (unsigned long row)
{
return Data[row];
}
};
First of all, having a suitable 2D matrix class is presumed but not the question. But I don't know the API of yours, so I'll illustrate with something typical:
struct coord {
size_t x; // x position or column count
size_t y; // y position or row count
};
template <typename T>
class Matrix2D {
⋮ // implementation details
public:
⋮ // all needed special members (ctors dtor, assignment)
Matrix2D (coord dimensions);
coord dimensions() const; // return height and width
const T& cell (coord position) const; // read-only access
T& cell (coord position); // read-write access
// handy synonym:
const T& operator[](coord position) const { return cell(position); }
T& operator[](coord position) { return cell(position); }
};
I just showed the public members I need: create a matrix with a given size, query the size, and indexed access to the individual elements.
So, given that, your problem description is:
template<typename T>
Matrix2D<T> scale_pow2 (const Matrix2D& input, size_t pow)
{
const auto scale_factor= 1 << pow;
const auto size_in = input.dimensions();
Matrix2D<T> result ({size_in.x*scale_factor,size_in.y*scale_factor});
⋮
⋮ // fill up result
⋮
return result;
}
OK, so now the problem is precisely defined: what code goes in the big blank immediately above?
Each cell in the input gets put into a bunch of cells in the output. So you can either iterate over the input and write a clump of cells in the output all having the same value, or you can iterate over the output and each cell you need the value for is looked up in the input.
The latter is simpler since you don't need a nested loop (or pair of loops) to write a clump.
for (coord outpos : /* ?? every cell of the output ?? */) {
coord frompos {
outpos.x >> pow,
outpos.y >> pow };
result[outpos] = input[frompos];
}
Now that's simple!
Calculating the from position for a given output must match the way the scale was defined: you will have pow bits giving the position relative to this clump, and the higher bits will be the index of where that clump came from
Now, we want to set outpos to every legal position in the output matrix indexes. That's what I need. How to actually do that is another sub-problem and can be pushed off with top-down decomposition.
a bit more advanced
Maybe nested loops is the easiest way to get that done, but I won't put those directly into this code, pushing my nesting level even deeper. And looping 0..max is not the simplest thing to write in bare C++ without libraries, so that would just be distracting. And, if you're working with matrices, this is something you'll have a general need for, including (say) printing out the answer!
So here's the double-loop, put into its own code:
struct all_positions {
coord current {0,0};
coord end;
all_positions (coord end) : end{end} {}
bool next() {
if (++current.x < end.x) return true; // not reached the end yet
current.x = 0; // reset to the start of the row
if (++current.y < end.y) return true;
return false; // I don't have a valid position now.
}
};
This does not follow the iterator/collection API that you could use in a range-based for loop. For information on how to do that, see my article on Code Project or use the Ranges stuff in the C++20 standard library.
Given this "old fashioned" iteration helper, I can write the loop as:
all_positions scanner {output.dimensions}; // starts at {0,0}
const auto& outpos= scanner.current;
do {
⋮
} while (scanner.next());
Because of the simple implementation, it starts at {0,0} and advancing it also tests at the same time, and it returns false when it can't advance any more. Thus, you have to declare it (gives the first cell), use it, then advance&test. That is, a test-at-the-end loop. A for loop in C++ checks the condition before each use, and advances at the end, using different functions. So, making it compatible with the for loop is more work, and surprisingly making it work with the ranged-for is not much more work. Separating out the test and advance the right way is the real work; the rest is just naming conventions.
As long as this is "custom", you can further modify it for your needs. For example, add a flag inside to tell you when the row changed, or that it's the first or last of a row, to make it handy for pretty-printing.
summary
You need a bunch of things working in addition to the little piece of code you actually want to write. Here, it's a usable Matrix class. Very often, it's prompting for input, opening files, handling command-line options, and that kind of stuff. It distracts from the real problem, so get that out of the way first.
Write your code (the real code you came for) in its own function, separate from any other stuff you also need in order to house it. Get it elsewhere if you can; it's not part of the lesson and just serves as a distraction. Worse, it may be "hard" in ways you are not prepared for (or to do well) as it's unrelated to the actual lesson being worked on.
Figure out the algorithm (flowchart, pseudocode, whatever) in a general way before translating that to legal syntax and API on the objects you are using. If you're just learning C++, don't get bogged down in the formal syntax when you are trying to figure out the logic. Until you naturally start to think in C++ when doing that kind of planning, don't force it. Use whiteboard doodles, tinkertoys, whatever works for you.
Get feedback and review of the idea, the logic of how to make it happen, from your peers and mentors if available, before you spend time coding. Why write up an idea that doesn't work? Fix the logic, not the code.
Finally, sketch the needed control flow, functions and data structures you need. Use pseudocode and placeholder notes.
Then fill in the placeholders and replace the pseudo with the legal syntax. You already planned it out, so now you can concentrate on learning the syntax and library details of the programming language. You can concentrate on "how do I express (some tiny detail) in C++" rather than keeping the entire program in your head. More generally, isolate a part that you will be learning; be learning/practicing one thing without worrying about the entire edifice.
To a large extent, some of those ideas translate to the code as well. Top-Down Design means you state things at a high level and then implement that elsewhere, separately. It makes code readable and maintainable, as well as easier to write in the first place. Functions should be written this way: the function explains how to do (what it does) as a list of details that are just one level of detail further down. Each of those steps then becomes a new function. Functions should be short and expressed at one semantic level of abstraction. Don't dive down into the most primitive details inside the function that explains the task as a set of simpler steps.
Good luck, and keep it up!
I am working on digital sampling for sensor. I have following code to compute the highest amplitude and the corresponding time.
struct LidarPoints{
float timeStamp;
float Power;
}
std::vector<LidarPoints> measurement; // To store Lidar points of current measurement
Currently power and energy are the same (because of delta function)and vector is arranged in ascending order of time. I would like to change this to step function. Pulse duration is a constant 10ns.
uint32_t pulseDuration = 5;
The problem is to find any overlap between the samples and if any to add up the amplitudes.
I currently use following code:
for(auto i= 0; i< measurement.size(); i++){
for(auto j=i+1; i< measurement.size(); j++){
if(measurement[j].timeStamp - measurement[i].timeStamp) < pulseDuration){
measurement[i].Power += measurement[j].Power;
measurement[i].timeStamp = (measurement[i].timeStamp + measurement[j].timeStamp)/2.0f;
}
}
}
Is it possible to code this without two for loops since I cannot afford the amount of time being taken by nested loops.
You can take advantage that the vector is sorted by timeStamp and find the next pulse with binary search, thus reducing the complexity from O(n^2) to O(n log n):
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <numeric>
#include <iterator
auto it = measurement.begin();
auto end = measurement.end();
while (it != end)
{
// next timestamp as in your code
auto timeStampLower = it->timeStamp + pulseDuration;
// next value in measurement with a timestamp >= timeStampLower
auto lower_bound = std::lower_bound(it, end, timeStampLower, [](float a, const LidarPoints& b) {
return a < b.timeStamp;
});
// sum over [timeStamp, timeStampLower)
float sum = std::accumulate(it, lower_bound, 0.0f, [] (float a, const LidarPoints& b) {
return a + b.timeStamp;
});
auto num = std::distance(it, lower_bound);
// num should be >= since the vector is sorted and pulseDuration is positive
// you should uncomment next line to catch unexpected error
// Expects(num >= 1); // needs GSL library
// assert(num >= 1); // or standard C if you don't want to use GSL
// average over [timeStamp, timeStampLower)
it->timeStamp = sum / num;
// advance it
it = lower_bound;
}
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/lower_bound
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/accumulate
Also please note that my algorithm will produce different result than yours because you don't really compute the average over multiple values with measurement[i].timeStamp = (measurement[i].timeStamp + measurement[j].timeStamp)/2.0f
Also to consider: (I am by far not an expert in the field, so I am just throwing the ideea, it's up to you to know if its valid or not): with your code you just "squash" together close measurement, instead of having a vector of measurement with periodic time. It might be what you intend or not.
Disclaimer: not tested beyond "it compiles". Please don't just copy-paste it. It could be incomplet and incorrekt. But I hope I gave you a direction to investigate.
Due to jitter and other timing complexities, instead of simple summation, you need to switch to [Numerical Integration][۱] (eg. Trapezoidal Integration...).
If your values are in ascending order of timeStamp adding else break to the if statement shouldn't effect the result but should be a lot quicker.
for(auto i= 0; i< measurement.size(); i++){
for(auto j=i+1; i< measurement.size(); j++){
if(measurement[j].timeStamp - measurement[i].timeStamp) < pulseDuration){
measurement[i].Power += measurement[j].Power;
measurement[i].timeStamp = (measurement[i].timeStamp + measurement[j].timeStamp)/2.0f;
} else {
break;
}
}
}
Trying to increase the width of an image array to return to an opencv mat. The problem is speed when the temp_mat array needs to be shifted by a certain amount as the image increases in size. See function below:
This line will run with good speed:
//temp_mat[height][width] = in_mat[i][j];
But the speed decreases by a lot when changed to:
temp_mat[height][width + int(((width - middle_point) * -1) * FLOAT_HERE)] = in_mat[i][j];
The loop takes many milliseconds longer to run. Here is the complete function, variable names have been changed.
#define D_HEIGHT 1000
#define D_WIDTH 1200
int DEFAULT_HEIGHT = 1000;
int DEFAULT_WIDTH = 1200;
float FLOAT_HERE = .04;
static int temp_mat[D_HEIGHT][D_WIDTH];
cv::Mat get_mat(int in_mat[D_HEIGHT][300]){
int height = 0;
int width = 0;
int middle_point = DEFAULT_WIDTH/2;
for(int i=0;i < DEFAULT_HEIGHT;i++){
width = 0;
for(int j =0;j < DEFAULT_WIDTH / 4;j++){
for(int il = 0; il < DEFAULT_WIDTH / (DEFAULT_WIDTH/4); il++){
//This is to slow, but what I need
temp_mat[height][width + int(((width - middle_point) * -1) * FLOAT_HERE)] = in_mat[i][j];
//This is ok
//temp_mat[height][width] = in_mat[i][j];
width++;
}
}
height++;
}
return cv::Mat(D_HEIGHT,D_WIDTH,CV_8UC4,temp_mat);
}
Any ideas to make it faster are welcome. I am hoping to avoid a new thread.
You are doing that wrong just use Affine Transformation and OpenCV will do this in fastest possible way.
Even though DEFAULT_WIDTH is not declared const it appears to be used as a constant, and the naming of the variable suggests it as well. You should probably make it constant, even though that in it self will not improve performance. I say this because you are calculating a middle_point that is then also constant, and can be pre calculated. The same goes for the FLOAT_HERE, which also appears to be constant.
Having made those constant the only variable in the calculation, which you make multiple times is the width variable. Since you are always looping the same number of iterations, you might consider pre-calculating the different values, simply creating a cache of values instead of calculating on the fly.
For each value of width you can create a corresponding calculated value, you can store this in an array where the index is the width, and the value is what is calculated:
int width_cache[DEFAULT_WIDTH];
...
for (int i = 0; i < DEFAULT_WIDTH; ++i) {
width_cache[i] = i + int(((i - middle_point) * -1) * FLOAT_HERE);
}
In your loop, you could then do:
temp_mat[height][width_cache[width]] = in_mat[i][j];
I created an image processing algorithm using OpenCV and currently I'm trying to improve the time efficiency of my own, simple function which is similar to LUT, but with interpolation between values (double calibRI::corr(double)).
I optimized the pixel loop according to the OpenCV docs.
Non parallel function (calib(cv::Mat) -an object of calibRI functor class) takes about 0.15s. I decided to use cv::parallel_for_ to make it shorter.
First I implemented it as image tiling -according to >> this document. The time was reduced to 0.12s (4 threads).
virtual void operator()(const cv::Range& range) const
{
for(int i = range.start; i < range.end; i++)
{
// divide image in 'thr' number of parts and process simultaneously
cv::Rect roi(0, (img.rows/thr)*i, img.cols, img.rows/thr);
cv::Mat in = img(roi);
cv::Mat out = retVal(roi);
out = calib(in); //loops over all pixels and does out[u,v]=calibRI::corr(in[u,v])
}
I though that running my function in parallel for subimages/tiles/ROIs is not yet optimal, so I implemented it as below:
template <typename T>
class ParallelPixelLoop : public cv::ParallelLoopBody
{
typedef boost::function<T(T)> pixelProcessingFuntionPtr;
private:
cv::Mat& image; //source and result image (to be overwritten)
bool cont; //if the image is continuous
size_t rows;
size_t cols;
size_t threads;
std::vector<cv::Range> ranges;
pixelProcessingFuntionPtr pixelProcessingFunction; //pixel modif. function
public:
ParallelPixelLoop(cv::Mat& img, pixelProcessingFuntionPtr fun, size_t thr = 4)
: image(img), cont(image.isContinuous()), rows(img.rows), cols(img.cols), pixelProcessingFunction(fun), threads(thr)
{
int groupSize = 1;
if (cont) {
cols *= rows;
rows = 1;
groupSize = ceil( cols / threads );
}
else {
groupSize = ceil( rows / threads );
}
int t = 0;
for(t=0; t<threads-1; ++t) {
ranges.push_back( cv::Range( t*groupSize, (t+1)*groupSize ) );
}
ranges.push_back( cv::Range( t*groupSize, rows<=1?cols:rows ) ); //last range must be to the end of image (ceil used before)
}
virtual void operator()(const cv::Range& range) const
{
for(int r = range.start; r < range.end; r++)
{
T* Ip = nullptr;
cv::Range ran = ranges.at(r);
if(cont) {
Ip = image.ptr<T>(0);
for (int j = ran.start; j < ran.end; ++j)
{
Ip[j] = pixelProcessingFunction(Ip[j]);
}
}
else {
for(int i = ran.start; i < ran.end; ++i)
{
Ip = image.ptr<T>(i);
for (int j = 0; j < cols; ++j)
{
Ip[j] = pixelProcessingFunction(Ip[j]);
}
}
}
}
}
};
Then I run it on 1280x1024 64FC1 image, on i5 processor, Win8, and get the time in range of 0.4s using the code below:
double t = cv::getTickCount();
ParallelPixelLoop<double> loop(V,boost::bind(&calibRI::corr,this,_1),4);
cv::parallel_for_(cv::Range(0,4),loop);
std::cout << "Exec time: " << (cv::getTickCount()-t)/cv::getTickFrequency() << "s\n";
I have no idea why is my implementation so much slower than iterating all the pixels in subimages... Is there a bug in my code or the OpenCV ROIs are optimized in some special way?
I do not think there is a time measurement error issue, as described here. I'm using OpenCV time functions.
Is there any other way to reduce the time of this function?
Thanks in advance!
Generally it's really hard to say why using cv::parallel_for failed to speed up whole process. One possibility is that the problem is not related to processing/multithreading, but to time measurement. About 2 months ago i tried to optimize this algorithm and i noticed strange thing - first time i use it, it takes x ms, but if use use it second, third, ... time (of course without restarting application) it takes about x/2 (or even x/3) ms. I'm not sure what causes this behaviour - most likely (in my opinion) it's causes by branch prediction - when code is executed first time branch predictor "learns" which paths are usually taken, so next time it can predict which branch to take(and usually the guess will be correct). You can read more about it here - it's really good question and it can open your eyes for some quite important thing.
So, in your situation i would try few things:
measure it many times - 100 or 1000 should be enough (if it takes 0.12-0.4s it won't take much time) and see whether the last version of you code still is the slowest one. So just replace your code with this:
double t = cv::getTickCount();
for (unsigned int i=0; i<1000; i++) {
ParallelPixelLoop loop(V,boost::bind(&calibRI::corr,this,_1),4);
cv::parallel_for_(cv::Range(0,4),loop);
}
std::cout << "Exec time: " << (cv::getTickCount()-t)/cv::getTickFrequency() << "s\n";
test it on bigger image. Maybe in your situation you just "don't need" 4 cores, but on bigger image 4 cores will make positive difference.
Use profiler (for example Very Sleepy) to see what part of your code is critical
I'm working on a statistical application containing approximately 10 - 30 million floating point values in an array.
Several methods performing different, but independent, calculations on the array in nested loops, for example:
Dictionary<float, int> noOfNumbers = new Dictionary<float, int>();
for (float x = 0f; x < 100f; x += 0.0001f) {
int noOfOccurrences = 0;
foreach (float y in largeFloatingPointArray) {
if (x == y) {
noOfOccurrences++;
}
}
noOfNumbers.Add(x, noOfOccurrences);
}
The current application is written in C#, runs on an Intel CPU and needs several hours to complete. I have no knowledge of GPU programming concepts and APIs, so my questions are:
Is it possible (and does it make sense) to utilize a GPU to speed up such calculations?
If yes: Does anyone know any tutorial or got any sample code (programming language doesn't matter)?
UPDATE GPU Version
__global__ void hash (float *largeFloatingPointArray,int largeFloatingPointArraySize, int *dictionary, int size, int num_blocks)
{
int x = (threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x); // Each thread of each block will
float y; // compute one (or more) floats
int noOfOccurrences = 0;
int a;
while( x < size ) // While there is work to do each thread will:
{
dictionary[x] = 0; // Initialize the position in each it will work
noOfOccurrences = 0;
for(int j = 0 ;j < largeFloatingPointArraySize; j ++) // Search for floats
{ // that are equal
// to it assign float
y = largeFloatingPointArray[j]; // Take a candidate from the floats array
y *= 10000; // e.g if y = 0.0001f;
a = y + 0.5; // a = 1 + 0.5 = 1;
if (a == x) noOfOccurrences++;
}
dictionary[x] += noOfOccurrences; // Update in the dictionary
// the number of times that the float appears
x += blockDim.x * gridDim.x; // Update the position here the thread will work
}
}
This one I just tested for smaller inputs, because I am testing in my laptop. Nevertheless, it is working, but more tests are needed.
UPDATE Sequential Version
I just did this naive version that executes your algorithm for an array with 30,000,000 element in less than 20 seconds (including the time taken by function that generates the data).
This naive version first sorts your array of floats. Afterward, will go through the sorted array and check the number of times a given value appears in the array and then puts this value in a dictionary along with the number of times it has appeared.
You can use sorted map, instead of the unordered_map that I used.
Heres the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "cuda.h"
#include <algorithm>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <tr1/unordered_map>
typedef std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int> Mymap;
void generator(float *data, long int size)
{
float LO = 0.0;
float HI = 100.0;
for(long int i = 0; i < size; i++)
data[i] = LO + (float)rand()/((float)RAND_MAX/(HI-LO));
}
void print_array(float *data, long int size)
{
for(long int i = 2; i < size; i++)
printf("%f\n",data[i]);
}
std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int> fill_dict(float *data, int size)
{
float previous = data[0];
int count = 1;
std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int> dict;
for(long int i = 1; i < size; i++)
{
if(previous == data[i])
count++;
else
{
dict.insert(Mymap::value_type(previous,count));
previous = data[i];
count = 1;
}
}
dict.insert(Mymap::value_type(previous,count)); // add the last member
return dict;
}
void printMAP(std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int> dict)
{
for(std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int>::iterator i = dict.begin(); i != dict.end(); i++)
{
std::cout << "key(string): " << i->first << ", value(int): " << i->second << std::endl;
}
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
int size = 1000000;
if(argc > 1) size = atoi(argv[1]);
printf("Size = %d",size);
float data[size];
using namespace __gnu_cxx;
std::tr1::unordered_map<float, int> dict;
generator(data,size);
sort(data, data + size);
dict = fill_dict(data,size);
return 0;
}
If you have the library thrust installed in you machine your should use this:
#include <thrust/sort.h>
thrust::sort(data, data + size);
instead of this
sort(data, data + size);
For sure it will be faster.
Original Post
I'm working on a statistical application which has a large array
containing 10 - 30 millions of floating point values.
Is it possible (and does it make sense) to utilize a GPU to speed up
such calculations?
Yes, it is. A month ago, I ran an entirely Molecular Dynamic simulation on a GPU. One of the kernels, which calculated the force between pairs of particles, received as parameter 6 array each one with 500,000 doubles, for a total of 3 Millions doubles (22 MB).
So if you are planning to put 30 Million floating points, which is about 114 MB of global Memory, it will not be a problem.
In your case, can the number of calculations be an issue? Based on my experience with the Molecular Dynamic (MD), I would say no. The sequential MD version takes about 25 hours to complete while the GPU version took 45 Minutes. You said your application took a couple hours, also based in your code example it looks softer than the MD.
Here's the force calculation example:
__global__ void add(double *fx, double *fy, double *fz,
double *x, double *y, double *z,...){
int pos = (threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x);
...
while(pos < particles)
{
for (i = 0; i < particles; i++)
{
if(//inside of the same radius)
{
// calculate force
}
}
pos += blockDim.x * gridDim.x;
}
}
A simple example of a code in CUDA could be the sum of two 2D arrays:
In C:
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
c[i] = a[i] + b[i];
In CUDA:
__global__ add(int *c, int *a, int*b, int N)
{
int pos = (threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x)
for(; i < N; pos +=blockDim.x)
c[pos] = a[pos] + b[pos];
}
In CUDA you basically took each for iteration and assigned to each thread,
1) threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x*blockDim.x;
Each block has an ID from 0 to N-1 (N the number maximum of blocks) and each block has a 'X' number of threads with an ID from 0 to X-1.
Gives you the for loop iteration that each thread will compute based on its ID and the block ID which the thread is in; the blockDim.x is the number of threads that a block has.
So if you have 2 blocks each one with 10 threads and N=40, the:
Thread 0 Block 0 will execute pos 0
Thread 1 Block 0 will execute pos 1
...
Thread 9 Block 0 will execute pos 9
Thread 0 Block 1 will execute pos 10
....
Thread 9 Block 1 will execute pos 19
Thread 0 Block 0 will execute pos 20
...
Thread 0 Block 1 will execute pos 30
Thread 9 Block 1 will execute pos 39
Looking at your current code, I have made this draft of what your code could look like in CUDA:
__global__ hash (float *largeFloatingPointArray, int *dictionary)
// You can turn the dictionary in one array of int
// here each position will represent the float
// Since x = 0f; x < 100f; x += 0.0001f
// you can associate each x to different position
// in the dictionary:
// pos 0 have the same meaning as 0f;
// pos 1 means float 0.0001f
// pos 2 means float 0.0002f ect.
// Then you use the int of each position
// to count how many times that "float" had appeared
int x = blockIdx.x; // Each block will take a different x to work
float y;
while( x < 1000000) // x < 100f (for incremental step of 0.0001f)
{
int noOfOccurrences = 0;
float z = converting_int_to_float(x); // This function will convert the x to the
// float like you use (x / 0.0001)
// each thread of each block
// will takes the y from the array of largeFloatingPointArray
for(j = threadIdx.x; j < largeFloatingPointArraySize; j += blockDim.x)
{
y = largeFloatingPointArray[j];
if (z == y)
{
noOfOccurrences++;
}
}
if(threadIdx.x == 0) // Thread master will update the values
atomicAdd(&dictionary[x], noOfOccurrences);
__syncthreads();
}
You have to use atomicAdd because different threads from different blocks may write/read noOfOccurrences concurrently, so you have to ensure mutual exclusion.
This is just one approach; you can even assign the iterations of the outer loop to the threads instead of the blocks.
Tutorials
The Dr Dobbs Journal series CUDA: Supercomputing for the masses by Rob Farmer is excellent and covers just about everything in its fourteen installments. It also starts rather gently and is therefore fairly beginner-friendly.
and anothers:
Volume I: Introduction to CUDA Programming
Getting started with CUDA
CUDA Resources List
Take a look on the last item, you will find many link to learn CUDA.
OpenCL: OpenCL Tutorials | MacResearch
I don't know much of anything about parallel processing or GPGPU, but for this specific example, you could save a lot of time by making a single pass over the input array rather than looping over it a million times. With large data sets you will usually want to do things in a single pass if possible. Even if you're doing multiple independent computations, if it's over the same data set you might get better speed doing them all in the same pass, as you'll get better locality of reference that way. But it may not be worth it for the increased complexity in your code.
In addition, you really don't want to add a small amount to a floating point number repetitively like that, the rounding error will add up and you won't get what you intended. I've added an if statement to my below sample to check if inputs match your pattern of iteration, but omit it if you don't actually need that.
I don't know any C#, but a single pass implementation of your sample would look something like this:
Dictionary<float, int> noOfNumbers = new Dictionary<float, int>();
foreach (float x in largeFloatingPointArray)
{
if (math.Truncate(x/0.0001f)*0.0001f == x)
{
if (noOfNumbers.ContainsKey(x))
noOfNumbers.Add(x, noOfNumbers[x]+1);
else
noOfNumbers.Add(x, 1);
}
}
Hope this helps.
Is it possible (and does it make sense) to utilize a GPU to speed up
such calculations?
Definitely YES, this kind of algorithm is typically the ideal candidate for massive data-parallelism processing, the thing GPUs are so good at.
If yes: Does anyone know any tutorial or got any sample code
(programming language doesn't matter)?
When you want to go the GPGPU way you have two alternatives : CUDA or OpenCL.
CUDA is mature with a lot of tools but is NVidia GPUs centric.
OpenCL is a standard running on NVidia and AMD GPUs, and CPUs too. So you should really favour it.
For tutorial you have an excellent series on CodeProject by Rob Farber : http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/Rob-Farber#Articles
For your specific use-case there is a lot of samples for histograms buiding with OpenCL (note that many are image histograms but the principles are the same).
As you use C# you can use bindings like OpenCL.Net or Cloo.
If your array is too big to be stored in the GPU memory, you can block-partition it and rerun your OpenCL kernel for each part easily.
In addition to the suggestion by the above poster use the TPL (task parallel library) when appropriate to run in parallel on multiple cores.
The example above could use Parallel.Foreach and ConcurrentDictionary, but a more complex map-reduce setup where the array is split into chunks each generating an dictionary which would then be reduced to a single dictionary would give you better results.
I don't know whether all your computations map correctly to the GPU capabilities, but you'll have to use a map-reduce algorithm anyway to map the calculations to the GPU cores and then reduce the partial results to a single result, so you might as well do that on the CPU before moving on to a less familiar platform.
I am not sure whether using GPUs would be a good match given that
'largerFloatingPointArray' values need to be retrieved from memory. My understanding is that GPUs are better suited for self contained calculations.
I think turning this single process application into a distributed application running on many systems and tweaking the algorithm should speed things up considerably, depending how many systems are available.
You can use the classic 'divide and conquer' approach. The general approach I would take is as follows.
Use one system to preprocess 'largeFloatingPointArray' into a hash table or a database. This would be done in a single pass. It would use floating point value as the key, and the number of occurrences in the array as the value. Worst case scenario is that each value only occurs once, but that is unlikely. If largeFloatingPointArray keeps changing each time the application is run then in-memory hash table makes sense. If it is static, then the table could be saved in a key-value database such as Berkeley DB. Let's call this a 'lookup' system.
On another system, let's call it 'main', create chunks of work and 'scatter' the work items across N systems, and 'gather' the results as they become available. E.g a work item could be as simple as two numbers indicating the range that a system should work on. When a system completes the work, it sends back array of occurrences and it's ready to work on another chunk of work.
The performance is improved because we do not keep iterating over largeFloatingPointArray. If lookup system becomes a bottleneck, then it could be replicated on as many systems as needed.
With large enough number of systems working in parallel, it should be possible to reduce the processing time down to minutes.
I am working on a compiler for parallel programming in C targeted for many-core based systems, often referred to as microservers, that are/or will be built using multiple 'system-on-a-chip' modules within a system. ARM module vendors include Calxeda, AMD, AMCC, etc. Intel will probably also have a similar offering.
I have a version of the compiler working, which could be used for such an application. The compiler, based on C function prototypes, generates C networking code that implements inter-process communication code (IPC) across systems. One of the IPC mechanism available is socket/tcp/ip.
If you need help in implementing a distributed solution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
Added Nov 16, 2012.
I thought a little bit more about the algorithm and I think this should do it in a single pass. It's written in C and it should be very fast compared with what you have.
/*
* Convert the X range from 0f to 100f in steps of 0.0001f
* into a range of integers 0 to 1 + (100 * 10000) to use as an
* index into an array.
*/
#define X_MAX (1 + (100 * 10000))
/*
* Number of floats in largeFloatingPointArray needs to be defined
* below to be whatever your value is.
*/
#define LARGE_ARRAY_MAX (1000)
main()
{
int j, y, *noOfOccurances;
float *largeFloatingPointArray;
/*
* Allocate memory for largeFloatingPointArray and populate it.
*/
largeFloatingPointArray = (float *)malloc(LARGE_ARRAY_MAX * sizeof(float));
if (largeFloatingPointArray == 0) {
printf("out of memory\n");
exit(1);
}
/*
* Allocate memory to hold noOfOccurances. The index/10000 is the
* the floating point number. The contents is the count.
*
* E.g. noOfOccurances[12345] = 20, means 1.2345f occurs 20 times
* in largeFloatingPointArray.
*/
noOfOccurances = (int *)calloc(X_MAX, sizeof(int));
if (noOfOccurances == 0) {
printf("out of memory\n");
exit(1);
}
for (j = 0; j < LARGE_ARRAY_MAX; j++) {
y = (int)(largeFloatingPointArray[j] * 10000);
if (y >= 0 && y <= X_MAX) {
noOfOccurances[y]++;
}
}
}