I'm trying to do an application in CUDA which uses global memory defined with device.
This variables are declared in a .cuh file.
In another file .cu is my main in which I do the cudaMallocs and the cudaMemCpy.
That's a part of my code:
cudaMalloc((void**)&varOne,*tam_varOne * sizeof(cuComplex));
cudaMemcpy(varOne,C_varOne,*tam_varOne * sizeof(cuComplex),cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
varOne is declared in the .cuh file like this:
__device__ cuComplex *varOne;
When I launch my kernel (I'm not passing varOne as parameter) and try to read varOne with the debugger, it says that can't read the variable. The pointer address it 000..0 so it's obviously that it is wrong.
So, how I have to declare and copy the global memory in CUDA?
First, you need to declare the pointers to the data that will be copied from the CPU to the GPU. In the example above, we want to copy the array original_cpu_array to CUDA global memory.
int original_cpu_array[array_size];
int *array_cuda;
Calculate the memory size that the data will occupy.
int size = array_size * sizeof(int);
Cuda memory allocation:
msg_erro[0] = cudaMalloc((void **)&array_cuda,size);
Copying from CPU to GPU:
msg_erro[0] = cudaMemcpy(array_cuda, original_cpu_array,size,cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
Execute kernel
Copying from GPU to CPU:
msg_erro[0] = cudaMemcpy(original_cpu_array,array_cuda,size,cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
Free Memory:
cudaFree(array_cuda);
For debugging reasons, typically, I save the status of the functions calls in an array. (e.g., cudaError_t msg_erro[var];). This is not strictly necessary, but it will save you some time if an error occurs during the allocation and memory transferences.
And if errors do occur, I print them using a function like:
void printErros(cudaError_t *erros,int size, int flag)
{
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
if(erros[i] != 0)
{
if(flag == 0) printf("Alocacao de memoria");
if(flag == 1) printf("CPU -> GPU ");
if(flag == 2) printf("GPU -> CPU ");
printf("{%d} => %s\n",i ,cudaGetErrorString(erros[i]));
}
}
The flag is primarily to indicate the part in the code that the error occurred. For instance, after a memory allocation:
msg_erro[0] = cudaMalloc((void **)&array_cuda,size);
printErros(msg_erro,msg_erro_size, 0);
I have experimented with some example and found that, you cannot directly use the global variable in the kernel without passing to it. Even though you initialize in .cuh file, you need to initialize in the main().
Reason:
If you declare it globally, the Memory is not allocated in the GPU Global Memory. You need to use cudaMalloc((void**)&varOne,sizeof(cuComplex)) for the allocation of memory. It can only allocate memory on GPU. The declaration __device__ cuComplex *varOne; works just as a prototype and variable declaration. But, the memory is not allocated until cudaMalloc((void**)&varOne,sizeof(cuComplex)) is used.
Also, you need to initialize the *varOne in main() as a Host pointer initially. After using cudaMalloc(), it comes to know that the pointer is Device Pointer.
The sequence of steps are: (for my tested code)
int *Ad; //If you can allocate this in .cuh file, you dont need the shown code in main()
__global__ void Kernel(int *Ad){
....
}
int main(){
....
int size=100*sizeof(int);
cudaMalloc((void**)&Ad,size);
cudaMemcpy(Ad,A,size,cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
....
}
Related
I have a data structure with pointers (think linked lists). Its size can't be determined before launching the kernel that reads the input data. So I allocate data on the device during input processing.
However, trying to copy that data back to host fails. From what I could gather, this is because there is a limitation in CUDA that does not allow device-allocated memory to be accessed by the runtime API. That information, however, was for CUDA 4 with "a fix coming soon". Does anyone know if that fix or a workaround ever came? I can't seem to find any recent information on this.
Here's a reproducible example:
#include <cstdio>
__device__ int *devData;
__global__ void initKernel()
{
devData = new int[6];
devData[0] = 0;
devData[1] = 1;
devData[2] = 2;
devData[3] = 3;
devData[4] = 4;
devData[5] = 5;
}
__global__ void printKernel()
{
printf("Testing device: %d\n", devData[3]);
}
int main()
{
initKernel<<<1,1>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
printKernel<<<1,1>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
int *devAddr;
cudaGetSymbolAddress((void **)&devAddr, devData);
int *hostData = new int[6];
cudaMemcpy(hostData, devAddr, 6*sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost)); //cudaErrorInvalidValue (invalid argument)
//same error with: cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(hostData, devData, 6*sizeof(int));
printf("Testing host: %d\n", testHost[3]);
return 0;
}
This throws a cudaErrorInvalidValue for cudaMemcpy (same for cudaMemcpyFromSymbol). This does not throw an error when I use __device__ int devData[6]; instead of __device__ int *devData; and prints 3 as expected.
It's still not possible.
This is documented in the programming guide.
In addition, device malloc() memory cannot be used in any runtime or driver API calls (i.e. cudaMemcpy, cudaMemset, etc).
If you have data in allocations that were created by in-kernel malloc() that you wish to transfer to the host, you will need to transfer that data first to a device memory allocation (or managed allocation), before copying to host or using in host code.
The same comments and all aspects of usage for in-kernel malloc apply equally to in-kernel new as well as in-kernel cudaMalloc.
I have a data structure with pointers (think linked lists). Its size can't be determined before launching the kernel that reads the input data. So I allocate data on the device during input processing.
However, trying to copy that data back to host fails. From what I could gather, this is because there is a limitation in CUDA that does not allow device-allocated memory to be accessed by the runtime API. That information, however, was for CUDA 4 with "a fix coming soon". Does anyone know if that fix or a workaround ever came? I can't seem to find any recent information on this.
Here's a reproducible example:
#include <cstdio>
__device__ int *devData;
__global__ void initKernel()
{
devData = new int[6];
devData[0] = 0;
devData[1] = 1;
devData[2] = 2;
devData[3] = 3;
devData[4] = 4;
devData[5] = 5;
}
__global__ void printKernel()
{
printf("Testing device: %d\n", devData[3]);
}
int main()
{
initKernel<<<1,1>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
printKernel<<<1,1>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
int *devAddr;
cudaGetSymbolAddress((void **)&devAddr, devData);
int *hostData = new int[6];
cudaMemcpy(hostData, devAddr, 6*sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost)); //cudaErrorInvalidValue (invalid argument)
//same error with: cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(hostData, devData, 6*sizeof(int));
printf("Testing host: %d\n", testHost[3]);
return 0;
}
This throws a cudaErrorInvalidValue for cudaMemcpy (same for cudaMemcpyFromSymbol). This does not throw an error when I use __device__ int devData[6]; instead of __device__ int *devData; and prints 3 as expected.
It's still not possible.
This is documented in the programming guide.
In addition, device malloc() memory cannot be used in any runtime or driver API calls (i.e. cudaMemcpy, cudaMemset, etc).
If you have data in allocations that were created by in-kernel malloc() that you wish to transfer to the host, you will need to transfer that data first to a device memory allocation (or managed allocation), before copying to host or using in host code.
The same comments and all aspects of usage for in-kernel malloc apply equally to in-kernel new as well as in-kernel cudaMalloc.
I have a struct :
struct A
{
double a;
int c;
double *array;
}
main()
{
A *str = new A[50];
for(int i=0;i<50;i++)
{
str[i].array = new double[5];
str[i].array[0] = 50;
}
.....
Buffer BufA = Buffer(...,..., 50 * sizeof(A),str);
.....
}
In kernel
struct A
{
double a;
int c;
double *array;
}
__kernel void vector(__global A *str)
{
int id = get_global_id(0);
printf("Element - %f",str[id].array[0]);
}
But in the kernel does not see the value in the array. Probably, because in the buffer I allocated memory for an array of structures without the memory of a dynamic array. How can I implement this?
On modern system, a process doesn't see the actual addresses of objects, but rather the virtual addresses of such objects.
This means, two processes cannot pass each others pointers and expect them to mean the same thing. You need to rethink your application with that in mind.
On top of the address virtualization mentioned by YSC, you should also keep in mind that the memory that your graphics card (or other OCL device) is operating on may be distinct (as in, different pieces of hardware) from the memory your CPU is operating on.
The OpenCL buffers are responsible for transporting their contents between these memories. So for example an array of ints that you create and write to on the CPU would have to be copied to GPU memory (and have space allocated there, and possibly be copied back after the kernel is done), which these buffers do for you. But if you store pointers to other CPU memory in your buffer, then that other memory will not be transferred automatically. Further, the pointer relation would most likely break, as there is no guarantee that your other data is at the same location in GPU memory as in CPU memory.
The solution, naturally, is to put all the data you want transferred into buffers, including the sub-arrays. One way to do this without using excessive amounts of buffers would be to pack the sub-arrays together into one and storing indices into it instead of pointers to memory.
I wrote a cuda kernel like this
__global__ void mykernel(int size; int * h){
double *x[size];
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
x[i] = new double[2];
}
h[0] = 20;
}
void main(){
int size = 2.5 * 100000 // or 10,000
int *h = new int[size];
int *u;
size_t sizee = size * sizeof(int);
cudaMalloc(&u, sizee);
mykernel<<<size, 1>>>(size, u);
cudaMemcpy(&h, &u, sizee, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cout << h[0];
}
I have some other code in the kernel too but I have commented it out. The code above it also allocates some more memory.
Now when I run this with size = 2.5*10^5 I get h[0] value to be 0;
When I run this with size = 100*100 I get h[0] value to be 20;
So I am guessing that my kernels are crashing cause I am running out of memory. I am using a Tesla card C2075 which has ram 2GB ! I even tried this by shutting down the xserver. What I am working on is not even 100mb of data.
How can I allocate more memory to each block?
Now when I run this with size = 2.5*10^5 I get h[0] value to be 0;
When I run this with size = 100*100 I get h[0] value to be 20;
In your kernel launch, you are using this size variable also:
mykernel<<<size, 1>>>(size, u);
^^^^
On a cc2.0 device (Tesla C2075), this particular parameter in the 1D case is limited to 65535. So 2.5*10^5 exceeds 65535, but 100*100 does not. Therefore, your kernel may be running if you specify size of 100*100, but is probably not running if you specify size of 2.5*10^5.
As already suggested to you, proper cuda error checking should point this error out to you, and in general will probably result in you needing to ask far fewer questions on SO, as well as posting higher-quality questions on SO. Take advantage of the CUDA runtime's ability to let you know when things have gone wrong and when you are making a mistake. Then you won't be in a quandary, thinking you have a memory allocation problem when in fact you probably have a kernel launch configuration problem.
How can I allocate more memory to each block?
Although it is probably not your main issue (as indicated above), in-kernel new and malloc are limited to the size of the device heap. Once this has been exhausted, further calls to new or malloc will return a null pointer. If you use this null pointer anyway, your kernel code will begin to perform unspecified behavior, and will likely crash.
When using new and malloc, especially when you're having trouble, it's good practice to check for a null return value. This applies to both host (at least for malloc) and device code.
The size of the device heap is pretty small to begin with (8MB), but it can be modified.
Referring to the documentation:
The device memory heap has a fixed size that must be specified before any program using malloc() or free() is loaded into the context. A default heap of eight megabytes is allocated if any program uses malloc() without explicitly specifying the heap size.
The following API functions get and set the heap size:
•cudaDeviceGetLimit(size_t* size, cudaLimitMallocHeapSize)
•cudaDeviceSetLimit(cudaLimitMallocHeapSize, size_t size)
The heap size granted will be at least size bytes. cuCtxGetLimit()and cudaDeviceGetLimit() return the currently requested heap size.
i am trying to allocate shared memory by using a constant parameter but getting an error. my kernel looks like this:
__global__ void Kernel(const int count)
{
__shared__ int a[count];
}
and i am getting an error saying
error: expression must have a constant value
count is const! Why am I getting this error? And how can I get around this?
CUDA supports dynamic shared memory allocation. If you define the kernel like this:
__global__ void Kernel(const int count)
{
extern __shared__ int a[];
}
and then pass the number of bytes required as the the third argument of the kernel launch
Kernel<<< gridDim, blockDim, a_size >>>(count)
then it can be sized at run time. Be aware that the runtime only supports a single dynamically declared allocation per block. If you need more, you will need to use pointers to offsets within that single allocation. Also be aware when using pointers that shared memory uses 32 bit words, and all allocations must be 32 bit word aligned, irrespective of the type of the shared memory allocation.
const doesn't mean "constant", it means "read-only".
A constant expression is something whose value is known to the compiler at compile-time.
option one: declare shared memory with constant value (not the same as const)
__global__ void Kernel(int count_a, int count_b)
{
__shared__ int a[100];
__shared__ int b[4];
}
option two: declare shared memory dynamically in the kernel launch configuration:
__global__ void Kernel(int count_a, int count_b)
{
extern __shared__ int *shared;
int *a = &shared[0]; //a is manually set at the beginning of shared
int *b = &shared[count_a]; //b is manually set at the end of a
}
sharedMemory = count_a*size(int) + size_b*size(int);
Kernel <<<numBlocks, threadsPerBlock, sharedMemory>>> (count_a, count_b);
note: Pointers to dynamically shared memory are all given the same address. I use two shared memory arrays to illustrate how to manually set up two arrays in shared memory.
From the "CUDA C Programming Guide":
The execution configuration is specified by inserting an expression of the form:
<<<Dg, Db, Ns, S>>>
where:
Dg is of type dim3 and specifies the dimensioin and size of the grid ...
Db is of type dim3 and specifies the dimension and size of each block ...
Ns is of type size_t and specifies the number of bytes in shared memory that is dynamically allocated per block for this call in addition to the statically allocated memory. This dynamically allocated memory is used by any of the variables declared as an external array as mentioned in __shared__; Ns is optional argument which defaults to 0;
S is of type cudaStream_t and specifies the associated stream ...
So by using the dynamical parameter Ns, the user can specify the total size of shared memory one kernel function can use, no matter how many shared variables there are in this kernel.
You cannot declare shared variable like this..
__shared__ int a[count];
although if you are sure enough about the max size of array a then you can directly declare like
__shared__ int a[100];
but in this case you should be worried about how many blocks are there in your program , since fixing shared memory to a block ( and not getting utilized fully), will lead you to context switching with global memory( high latency) , thus poor performance...
There is a nice solution to this problem to declare
extern __shared__ int a[];
and allocating the memory while calling kernel from memory like
Kernel<<< gridDim, blockDim, a_size >>>(count)
but you should also be bothered here because if you are using more memory in blocks than you are assigning in kernel , you are going to getting unexpected results.