Personal tools

Difference between revisions of "DoLoops performance in Fortran"

From MohidWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Test-case)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* that changing the chunk size or alternating between static and dynamic scheduling yield less than 10% differences in performance. Best performance is obtained, for this test-case, with a small dynamic chunk.
 
* that changing the chunk size or alternating between static and dynamic scheduling yield less than 10% differences in performance. Best performance is obtained, for this test-case, with a small dynamic chunk.
  
==Test-case==
+
==Test-cases==
===Description===
+
 
 +
===Simple triple do-loop===
 +
 
 +
====Description====
 
Performs a triple-do-loop with a simple computation over a cubic matrix. Size is chosen by the user through standard input.
 
Performs a triple-do-loop with a simple computation over a cubic matrix. Size is chosen by the user through standard input.
  
===Hardware===
+
====Hardware====
 
*Intel Core i7 - 870
 
*Intel Core i7 - 870
 
*8 GB Ram
 
*8 GB Ram
  
===Code===
+
====Code====
 
* The main program
 
* The main program
 
  program DoloopsOpenmp
 
  program DoloopsOpenmp
Line 108: Line 111:
 
  end module moduleDoloopsOpenmp
 
  end module moduleDoloopsOpenmp
  
===Results===
+
====Results====
 
<webimage>http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/49c2beae-32f4-4da0-96b1-ddae90bd2d02/2010-10-21_1735.png</webimage>
 
<webimage>http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/49c2beae-32f4-4da0-96b1-ddae90bd2d02/2010-10-21_1735.png</webimage>
 
*Full results
 
*Full results
Line 228: Line 231:
 
  600 4.00
 
  600 4.00
  
===Conclusions===
+
====Conclusions====
 
* do(k,j,i) Vs do(i,j,k) ==> 2 to 4 times faster!
 
* do(k,j,i) Vs do(i,j,k) ==> 2 to 4 times faster!
 
* dynamic small chunks, or no chunk at all yield 10% increased performance over large dynamic chunks. Probably better off with no-chunk.
 
* dynamic small chunks, or no chunk at all yield 10% increased performance over large dynamic chunks. Probably better off with no-chunk.
 
* More test-cases representing different scenarios of do-loops may yield different choices of CHUNK/scheduling.
 
* More test-cases representing different scenarios of do-loops may yield different choices of CHUNK/scheduling.
 +
 +
=== SetMatrix3D_Constant===
 +
====Description====
 +
This subroutine is in the ModuleFunctions of MohidWater. In the context of MohidWater, parallelizing this subroutine yields a worse performance. However, in the little test program, the same OMP directives yield quite good results.
 +
====Hardware====
 +
*Core i7-870
 +
*8 GB RAM
 +
====Code====
 +
 +
    real function SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant (Matrix, Valueb, MapMatrix)
 +
 +
        !Arguments-------------------------------------------------------------
 +
        real, dimension(:, :, :), pointer              :: Matrix
 +
        real, intent (IN)                              :: Valueb
 +
        integer, dimension(:, :, :), pointer, optional  :: MapMatrix
 +
 +
        !Local-----------------------------------------------------------------
 +
        integer                                        :: i, j, k
 +
        integer                                        :: ilb, iub, jlb, jub, klb, kub
 +
 +
        !Begin-----------------------------------------------------------------
 +
 +
        ilb = lbound(Matrix,1)
 +
        iub = ubound(Matrix,1)
 +
        jlb = lbound(Matrix,2)
 +
        jub = ubound(Matrix,2)
 +
        klb = lbound(Matrix,3)
 +
        kub = ubound(Matrix,3)
 +
 +
        !griflet: omp slowdown
 +
        if (present(MapMatrix)) then
 +
            !$OMP PARALLEL DO PRIVATE(i,j,k)
 +
            do k = klb, kub
 +
            do j = jlb, jub
 +
            do i = ilb, iub
 +
                if (MapMatrix(i, j, k) == 1) then
 +
                    Matrix (i, j, k) = Valueb
 +
                endif
 +
            enddo
 +
            enddo
 +
            enddo
 +
            !$OMP END PARALLEL DO
 +
        else
 +
            !$OMP PARALLEL DO PRIVATE(i,j,k)
 +
            do k = klb, kub
 +
            do j = jlb, jub
 +
            do i = ilb, iub
 +
                Matrix (i, j, k) = Valueb
 +
            enddo
 +
            enddo
 +
            enddo
 +
            !$OMP END PARALLEL DO
 +
        endif
 +
 +
        SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant = sumMatrix3D(Matrix)
 +
 +
    end function SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant
 +
 +
====Results====
 +
<webimage>http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/136f62db-a24f-4315-9eae-f4bcd9110d4e/2010-10-22_1553.png</webimage>
 +
  
 
[[Category:programming]]
 
[[Category:programming]]
 
[[Category:fortran]]
 
[[Category:fortran]]

Revision as of 16:58, 22 October 2010

What is the best performance that Fortran can give when computing do-loops over large matrices? A single triple-do-loop test-case was implemented with matrix size ranging from 1M to 216M four-byte units. The test-case below shows:

  • a 400% performance increase when looping with the order (k,j,i) instead of looping with the order (i,j,k),
  • that a 300% performance increase occur when using openmp directives in a quad-core processor (i7-870),
  • that changing the chunk size or alternating between static and dynamic scheduling yield less than 10% differences in performance. Best performance is obtained, for this test-case, with a small dynamic chunk.

Test-cases

Simple triple do-loop

Description

Performs a triple-do-loop with a simple computation over a cubic matrix. Size is chosen by the user through standard input.

Hardware

  • Intel Core i7 - 870
  • 8 GB Ram

Code

  • The main program
program DoloopsOpenmp

   use moduleDoloopsOpenmp, only: makeloop

   implicit none
   
   integer, dimension(:,:,:), pointer      :: mycube
   integer                                 :: M = 1
   real                                    :: elapsedtime
   real                                    :: time = 0.0

   do while (M < 1000)

       write(*,*) 'Insert the cube size M (or insert 1000 to exit): '
       read(*,*) M
       
       if (M > 999) exit

       allocate(mycube(1:M,1:M,1:M))

       !Tic()    
       time = elapsedtime(time)

       call makeloop(mycube)

       !Toc()
       time = elapsedtime(time)
       
       write(*,10) time
       write(*,*) 
        
       deallocate(mycube)
       nullify(mycube)

   end do

   10 format('Time elapsed: ',F6.2)
   
end program DoloopsOpenmp

!This function computes the time
real function elapsedtime(lasttime)

   integer     :: count, count_rate
   real        :: lasttime

   call system_clock(count, count_rate)
   
   elapsedtime = count * 1.0 / count_rate - lasttime

end function elapsedtime

  • The module
module moduleDoloopsOpenmp

   use omp_lib

   implicit none

   private

   public :: makeloop

contains

   subroutine makeloop(cubicmatrix)
   
       !Arguments --------------
       integer, dimension(:,:,:), pointer  :: cubicmatrix
   
       !Local variables --------
       integer                             :: i, j, k, lb, ub
       
       lb = lbound(cubicmatrix,3)
       ub = ubound(cubicmatrix,3)        
       
       !$OMP PARALLEL PRIVATE(i,j,k)        
       !$OMP DO
       do k = lb, ub
       do j = lb, ub
       do i = lb, ub
   
           cubicmatrix(i,j,k) = cubicmatrix(i,j,k) + 1
   
       end do
       end do
       end do
       !$OMP END DO
       !$OMP END PARALLEL

   end subroutine makeloop
   
end module moduleDoloopsOpenmp

Results

http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/49c2beae-32f4-4da0-96b1-ddae90bd2d02/2010-10-21_1735.png

  • Full results

http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/9e999f22-7204-481a-84be-495ffe35e9f7/2010-10-21_1734.png

  • Looking only at the results with STATIC/DYNAMIC/CHUNK variations.
----------------------------
DO (i,j,k) / NO CHUNK
----------------------------
Table A.1 - Debug do(i,j,k)
Size	Time
100		 0.04
200		 0.37
300		 1.58
400		 7.60
500		19.66
600		41.65

Table A.2 - Debug openmp without !$OMP PARALLEL directives do(i,j,k)
Size	Time
100		 0.04
200		 0.37
300		 1.58
400		 7.27
500		19.34
600		41.34

Table A.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(i,j,k)
Size	Time
100		 0.02
200		 0.19
300		 0.70
400		 1.86
500		 4.05
600		 7.83

----------------------------
DO (k,j,i) / NO CHUNK
----------------------------

Table B.1 - Debug do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.04
200		 0.31
300		 1.22
400		 3.36
500		 7.55
600		14.88

Table B.2 - Debug openmp without !$OMP PARALLEL directives do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.04
200		 0.31
300		 1.21
400		 3.36
500		 7.82
600		15.07

Table B.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.02
200		 0.09
300		 0.36
400		 0.94
500		 2.04
600		 3.89

----------------------------
DO (k,j,i) / STATIC CHUNK = (UBOUND - LBOUND) / NTHREADS + 1
----------------------------

Table C.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.02
200		 0.15
300		 0.42
400		 1.03
500		 2.12
600		 3.97

----------------------------
DO (k,j,i) / STATIC CHUNK = 10
----------------------------

Table D.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.02
200		 0.16
300		 0.43
400		 1.04
500		 2.18
600		 4.05

----------------------------
DO (k,j,i) / DYNAMIC CHUNK = 10
----------------------------

Table E.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.01
200		 0.10
300		 0.36
400		 0.93
500		 2.01
600		 3.89

----------------------------
DO (k,j,i) / DYNAMIC CHUNK = (UBOUND - LBOUND) / NTHREADS + 1
----------------------------

Table F.3 - Debug openmp with one !$OMP PARALLEL DO directive do(k,j,i)
Size	Time
100		 0.02
200		 0.09
300		 0.39
400		 1.04
500		 2.14
600		 4.00

Conclusions

  • do(k,j,i) Vs do(i,j,k) ==> 2 to 4 times faster!
  • dynamic small chunks, or no chunk at all yield 10% increased performance over large dynamic chunks. Probably better off with no-chunk.
  • More test-cases representing different scenarios of do-loops may yield different choices of CHUNK/scheduling.

SetMatrix3D_Constant

Description

This subroutine is in the ModuleFunctions of MohidWater. In the context of MohidWater, parallelizing this subroutine yields a worse performance. However, in the little test program, the same OMP directives yield quite good results.

Hardware

  • Core i7-870
  • 8 GB RAM

Code

   real function SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant (Matrix, Valueb, MapMatrix)

       !Arguments-------------------------------------------------------------
       real, dimension(:, :, :), pointer               :: Matrix
       real, intent (IN)                               :: Valueb
       integer, dimension(:, :, :), pointer, optional  :: MapMatrix

       !Local-----------------------------------------------------------------
       integer                                         :: i, j, k
       integer                                         :: ilb, iub, jlb, jub, klb, kub

       !Begin-----------------------------------------------------------------

       ilb = lbound(Matrix,1)
       iub = ubound(Matrix,1)
       jlb = lbound(Matrix,2)
       jub = ubound(Matrix,2)
       klb = lbound(Matrix,3)
       kub = ubound(Matrix,3)

       !griflet: omp slowdown
       if (present(MapMatrix)) then
           !$OMP PARALLEL DO PRIVATE(i,j,k)
           do k = klb, kub
           do j = jlb, jub
           do i = ilb, iub
               if (MapMatrix(i, j, k) == 1) then
                   Matrix (i, j, k) = Valueb
               endif
           enddo
           enddo
           enddo
           !$OMP END PARALLEL DO
       else
           !$OMP PARALLEL DO PRIVATE(i,j,k)
           do k = klb, kub
           do j = jlb, jub
           do i = ilb, iub
               Matrix (i, j, k) = Valueb
           enddo
           enddo
           enddo
           !$OMP END PARALLEL DO
       endif

       SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant = sumMatrix3D(Matrix)

   end function SetMatrixValues3D_R8_Constant

Results

http://content.screencast.com/users/GRiflet/folders/Jing/media/136f62db-a24f-4315-9eae-f4bcd9110d4e/2010-10-22_1553.png