When running a simulation in gem5, I can select a CPU with fs.py --cpu-type.
This option can also show a list of all CPU types if I use an invalid CPU type such as fs.py --cpu-type.
What is the difference between those CPU types and which one should I choose for my experiment?
Question inspired by: https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-users#gem5.org/msg16976.html
An overview of the CPU types can be found at: https://cirosantilli.com/linux-kernel-module-cheat/#gem5-cpu-types
In summary:
simplistic CPUs (derived from BaseSimpleCPU): for example AtomicSimpleCPU (the default one). They have no CPU pipeline, and therefor are completely unrealistic. However, they also run much faster. Therefore,they are mostly useful to boot Linux fast and then checkpoint and switch to a more detailed CPU.
Within the simple CPUs we can notably distinguish:
AtomicSimpleCPU: memory requests finish immediately
TimingSimpleCPU: memory requests actually take time to go through to the memory system and return. Since there is no CPU pipeline however, the simulated CPU stalls on every memory request waiting for a response.
An alternative to those is to use KVM CPUs to speed up boot if host and guest ISA are the same, although as of 2019, KVM is less stable as it is harder to implement and debug.
in-order CPUs: derived from the generic MinorCPU by parametrization, Minor stands for In Order:
for ARM: HPI is made by ARM and models a "(2017) modern in-order Armv8-A implementation". This is your best in-order ARM bet.
out-of-order CPUs, derived from the generic DerivO3CPU by parametrization, O3 stands for Out Of Order:
for ARM: there are no models specifically published by ARM as of 2019. The only specific O3 model available is ex5_big for an A15, but you would have to verify its authors claims on how well it models the real core A15 core.
If none of those are accurate enough for your purposes, you could try to create your own in-order/out-of-order models by parametrizing MinorCPU / DerivO3CPU like HPI and ex5_big do, although this could be hard to get right, as there isn't generally enough public information on non-free CPUs to do this without experiments or reverse engineering.
The other thing you will want to think about is the memory system model. There are basically two choices: classical vs Ruby, and within Ruby, several options are available, see also: https://cirosantilli.com/linux-kernel-module-cheat/#gem5-ruby-build
Related
We have been running DASK clusters on Kubernetes for some time. Up to now, we have been using CPUs for processing and, of course, system memory for storing our Dataframe of around 1,5 TB (per DASK cluster, split onto 960 workers). Now we want to update our algorithm to take advantage of GPUs. But it seems like the available memory on GPUs is not going to be enough for our needs, it will be a limiting factor(with our current setup, we are using more than 1GB of memory per virtual core).
I was wondering if it is possible to use GPUs (thinking about NVDIA, AMD cards with PCIe connections and their own VRAMS, not integrated GPUs that use system memory) for processing and system memory (not GPU memory/VRAM) for storing DASK Dataframes. I mean, is it technically possible? Have you ever tried something like this? Can I schedule a kubernetes pod such that it uses GPU cores and system memory together?
Another thing is, even if it was possible to allocate the system RAM as VRAM of GPU, is there a limitation to the size of this allocatable system RAM?
Note 1. I know that using system RAM with GPU (if it was possible) will create an unnecessary traffic through PCIe bus, and will result in a degraded performance, but I would still need to test this configuration with real data.
Note 2. GPUs are fast because they have many simple cores to perform simple tasks at the same time/in parallel. If an individual GPU core is not superior to an individual CPU core then may be I am chasing the wrong dream? I am already running dask workers on kubernetes which already have access to hundreds of CPU cores. In the end, having a huge number of workers with a part of my data won't mean better performance (increased shuffling). No use infinitely increasing the number of cores.
Note 3. We are mostly manipulating python objects and doing math calculations using calls to .so libraries implemented in C++.
Edit1: DASK-CUDA library seems to support spilling from GPU memory to host memory but spilling is not what I am after.
Edit2: It is very frustrating that most of the components needed to utilize GPUs on Kubernetes are still experimental/beta.
Dask-CUDA: This library is experimental...
NVIDIA device plugin: The NVIDIA device plugin is still considered beta and...
Kubernetes: Kubernetes includes experimental support for managing AMD and NVIDIA GPUs...
I don't think this is possible directly as of today, but it's useful to mention why and reply to some of the points you've raised:
Yes, dask-cuda is what comes to mind first when I think of your use-case. The docs do say it's experimental, but from what I gather, the team has plans to continue to support and improve it. :)
Next, dask-cuda's spilling mechanism was designed that way for a reason -- while doing GPU compute, your biggest bottleneck is data-transfer (as you have also noted), so we want to keep as much data on GPU-memory as possible by design.
I'd encourage you to open a topic on Dask's Discourse forum, where we can reach out to some NVIDIA developers who can help confirm. :)
A sidenote, there are some ongoing discussion around improving how Dask manages GPU resources. That's in its early stages, but we may see cool new features in the coming months!
Sometimes I find myself writing OpenCl kernel code (using pyopencl), even for tasks which involve moderate computational complexity, because it is easier to develop than a chain of numpy operations (especially if no appropriate numpy function exists).
However, in those cases the transfer overhead/delay between host and device may exceed the time spend for computation.
I was thinking about creating some Python tool, which automatically translates the OpenCl code to e.g. Cython code (or similar) which, after compilation for the CPU, can directly work on the underlying memory of the numpy arrays, without the need to copy the data to the device. I know that the CPU is capable of executing OpenCl kernels with appropriate drivers. However, this still has the disadvantages of additional delay due to the to_device operation. A multicore CPU could also exploit the OpenCL programming model for parallel execution. Furthermore, this approach removes the need for special OpenCl drivers and just requires some build tools for C-Code compilation.
Is that a reasonable idea? I do not want to reinvent the wheel. Any hints for existing frameworks/tools which could achieve my goals are much appreciated.
While converting an OpenCL code to a parallel CPU-oriented code is probably possible, it very hard (if not possible) to generate an efficient code.
Indeed, OpenCL encourage/force programmers to perform big computational steps (kernels) often reading/writing a relatively big portion of memory. However, the GPUs memory bandwidth is generally much higher than the one of CPUs (eg. my Nvidia 1660S has a bandwidth of 336 GB/s while my i5-9600KF with 2 DD4 channel succeed to reach about 40 GB/s while they had a similar price). OpenCL computing kernels are not be fully optimized for CPUs whatever the low-level transformation applied to the code. The main problem lies in the OpenCL algorithms themselves as well as the programming model. Rewriting OpenCL kernels to a CPU code can often result in a more efficient execution if the code is specifically optimized for such a platform. Low-level optimizations include working on in caches using data chunks, using register blocking, using the best SIMD instructions available. High-level optimizations consist in choosing the best algorithm and data structure for the target problem. The best sorting algorithm on a GPU is likely very different from the best one on a CPU. The same thing applies for other problems like computing a prefix sum, a partition/median or even string searching. Thus, one should keep in mind that different hardwares required different computing methods/algorithms.
A high-level algorithmic transformation could theoretically result in an efficient code, but such a transformation is insanely complex to perform if even possible. Indeed, there is fundamental theoretical limitations that strongly prevent many generalized advanced code analysis/transformation starting from the halting problem to high-level optimization.
I was wondering if a GPU could behave like a CPU if modified or programmed to do so. If there is a way, I would also like to know how that could be done. The reason why is, well, sometimes I do that kind of stuff as experiments, just for fun. Plus, if it isn't a big hassle, then it would be much better than buying an expensive processor just to get better performance. I usually don't need my GPU, only because I use my computer for the simplest of things. My other computer, that's a slightly different story (because I use it for video playback), but you get the idea.
Yes, it's called GPGPU (general purpose GPU), and with it you could program some CPU-like workloads on your GPU using languages like CUDA or OpenCL.
Of course this method doesn't work well with any workload, the CPU is still much better in single-threaded hard-to-parallelize codes, or codes with complicated control flow (due to branch predictors) or memory locality (due to better caching and prefetching). GPGPUs are mostly better for performing very straight-forward highly parallel vectorizable code.
In fact, this method of computation caught enough traction to create a new lines of products, (such as Xeon Phi, formely Larrabee), and enhancing existing GPUs (e.g. Tesla/Fermi, and others)
EDIT
Having reread your question - if you mean running actual CPU ISA on such GPGPU, not just some general CPU task, then the best bet is Xeon Phi mentioned above, it's intended to be based on the same ISA as the CPU (it's the only x86 GPGPU I know of).
I'm trying to figure out if modern GPUs have a reduced instruction set, or a complex instruction set.
Wikipedia says that it's not the size of the instruction set, rather how many cycles it takes to complete an instruction.
In RISC processors, each instruction can be completed in one cycle.
In CISC processors, it takes several cycles to complete some instructions.
I'm trying to figure out what the case is for modern GPUs.
If you mean Nvidia then it's clearly RISC as its most GPUs don't even have integer division and modulo operations in hardware, only shifts, bitwise operations and 3 arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication) are used to implement those 2. I can't find example but this question (modular arithmetic on the gpu) shows that mod uses
procedure which implements some sophisticated algorithm (about 50 instructions or even more)
Even NVVM (Nvidia virtual machine) language called PTX uses more operations some of which are "baked" into a bunch of simpler operations anyway after conversion to one of native languages (there are different versions of such languages because of nature of GPUs and their generations/families but those are just called SASS altogether).
You can see here all the available operations along with description on each which are yet very short and not very clear (especially if you don't have background in machine level programming like knowing that "scaled" means 1 left shifted to operand just as in x86's "FSCALE" or "Scale factor" etc.):
https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-binary-utilities/index.html#instruction-set-ref
If you mean AMDGPU then there is a lot of instructions and it's not so clear because some sources tell that they switched from VLIW to something just when Southern Islands GPUs were released.
RISC instruction set : the load/store unit is independent from other units so basically for loading and storing specific instruction are used
CISC insruction set : the ad/store unit in embedded in the instrction execution routine , therfore the instruction is more comlex than RISC instruction because CISC instruction beside the operation it will perform the load and store stage and this require more transistor logic to be used for one ibstruction
The goal of CISC was to take common coding patterns and accelerate them in hardware. You see this in the constant extensions to the base architecture. See Intel's MMX and SSE, and AMD's 3DNow!, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions This also makes for good marketing, as you need to upgrade to the new processor to accelerate the newest common tasks, and keeps coders busy constantly translating their code patterns to the new extensions.
The goal of RISC was the opposite. It tried to perform few base functions as fast as possible. The coder then needs to continue to break down their common coding tasks to those simple instructions (although high-level programming languages and code packages/libraries accomplish this for you). RISC continues to survive as the architecture for ARM processors. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_instruction_set_computer
I note that GPUs are similar to the RISC philosophy, in that the goal is to perform as many relatively simple computations as fast as possible. The move toward deep learning created a need for training millions of relatively simple parameters, hence the move back toward a highly parallel, relatively simple architecture. Having both philosophies implemented inside your computer is the best of both worlds.
(i) If a Program is optimised for one CPU class (e.g. Multi-Core Core i7)
by compiling the Code on the same , then will its performance
be at sub-optimal level on other CPUs from older generations (e.g. Pentium 4)
... Optimizing may prove harmful for performance on other CPUs..?
(ii)For optimization, compilers may use x86 extensions (like SSE 4) which are
not available in older CPUs.... so ,Is there a fall-back to some non-extensions
based routine on older CPUs..?
(iii)Is Intel C++ Compiler is more optimizing than Visual C++ Compiler or GCC..
(iv) Will a truly Multi-Core Threaded application will perform effeciently on a
older CPUs (like Pentium III or 4)..?
Compiling on a platform does not mean optimizing for this platform. (maybe it's just bad wording in your question.)
In all compilers I've used, optimizing for platform X does not affect the instruction set, only how it is used, e.g. optimizing for i7 does not enable SSE2 instructions.
Also, optimizers in most cases avoid "pessimizing" non-optimized platforms, e.g. when optimizing for i7, typically a small improvement on i7 will not not be chosen if it means a major hit for another common platform.
It also depends in the performance differences in the instruction sets - my impression is that they've become much less in the last decade (but I haven't delved to deep lately - might be wrong for the latest generations). Also consider that optimizations make a notable difference only in few places.
To illustrate possible options for an optimizer, consider the following methods to implement a switch statement:
sequence if (x==c) goto label
range check and jump table
binary search
combination of the above
the "best" algorithm depends on the relative cost of comparisons, jumps by fixed offsets and jumps to an address read from memory. They don't differ much on modern platforms, but even small differences can create a preference for one or other implementation.
It is probably true that optimising code for execution on CPU X will make that code less optimal on CPU Y than the same code optimised for execution on CPU Y. Probably.
Probably not.
Impossible to generalise. You have to test your code and come to your own conclusions.
Probably not.
For every argument about why X should be faster than Y under some set of conditions (choice of compiler, choice of CPU, choice of optimisation flags for compilation) some clever SOer will find a counter-argument, for every example a counter-example. When the rubber meets the road the only recourse you have is to test and measure. If you want to know whether compiler X is 'better' than compiler Y first define what you mean by better, then run a lot of experiments, then analyse the results.
I) If you did not tell the compiler which CPU type to favor, the odds are that it will be slightly sub-optimal on all CPUs. On the other hand, if you let the compiler know to optimize for your specific type of CPU, then it can definitely be sub-optimal on other CPU types.
II) No (for Intel and MS at least). If you tell the compiler to compile with SSE4, it will feel safe using SSE4 anywhere in the code without testing. It becomes your responsibility to ensure that your platform is capable of executing SSE4 instructions, otherwise your program will crash. You might want to compile two libraries and load the proper one. An alternative to compiling for SSE4 (or any other instruction set) is to use intrinsics, these will check internally for the best performing set of instructions (at the cost of a slight overhead). Note that I am not talking about instruction instrinsics here (those are specific to an instruction set), but intrinsic functions.
III) That is a whole other discussion in itself. It changes with every version, and may be different for different programs. So the only solution here is to test. Just a note though; Intel compilers are known not to compile well for running on anything other than Intel (e.g.: intrinsic functions may not recognize the instruction set of a AMD or Via CPU).
IV) If we ignore the on-die efficiencies of newer CPUs and the obvious architecture differences, then yes it may perform as well on older CPU. Multi-Core processing is not dependent per se on the CPU type. But the performance is VERY dependent on the machine architecture (e.g.: memory bandwidth, NUMA, chip-to-chip bus), and differences in the Multi-Core communication (e.g.: cache coherency, bus locking mechanism, shared cache). All this makes it impossible to compare newer and older CPU efficiencies in MP, but that is not what you are asking I believe. So on the whole, a MP program made for newer CPUs, should not be using less efficiently the MP aspects of older CPUs. Or in other words, just tweaking the MP aspects of a program specifically for an older CPU will not do much. Obviously you could rewrite your algorithm to more efficiently use a specific CPU (e.g.: A shared cache may permit you to use an algorithm that exchanges more data between working threads, but this algo will die on a system with no shared cache, full bus lock and low memory latency/bandwidth), but it involves a lot more than just MP related tweaks.
(1) Not only is it possible but it has been documented on pretty much every generation of x86 processor. Go back to the 8088 and work your way forward, every generation. Clock for clock the newer processor was slower for the current mainstream applications and operating systems (including Linux). The 32 to 64 bit transition is not helping, more cores and less clock speed is making it even worse. And this is true going backward as well for the same reason.
(2) Bank on your binaries failing or crashing. Sometimes you get lucky, most of the time you dont. There are new instructions yes, and to support them would probably mean trap for an undefined instruction and have a software emulation of that instruction which would be horribly slow and the lack of demand for it means it is probably not well done or just not there. Optimization can use new instructions but more than that the bulk of the optimization that I am guessing you are talking about has to do with reordering the instructions so that the various pipelines do not stall. So you arrange them to be fast on one generation processor they will be slower on another because in the x86 family the cores change too much. AMD had a good run there for a while as they would make the same code just run faster instead of trying to invent new processors that eventually would be faster when the software caught up. No longer true both amd and intel are struggling to just keep chips running without crashing.
(3) Generally, yes. For example gcc is a horrible compiler, one size fits all fits no one well, it can never and will never be any good at optimizing. For example gcc 4.x code is slower on gcc 3.x code for the same processor (yes all of this is subjective, it all depends on the specific application being compiled). The in house compilers I have used were leaps and bounds ahead of the cheap or free ones (I am not limiting myself to x86 here). Are they worth the price though? That is the question.
In general because of the horrible new programming languages and gobs of memory, storage, layers of caching, software engineering skills are at an all time low. Which means the pool of engineers capable of making a good compiler much less a good optimizing compiler decreases with time, this has been going on for at least 10 years. So even the in house compilers are degrading with time, or they just have their employees to work on and contribute to the open source tools instead having an in house tool. Also the tools the hardware engineers use are degrading for the same reason, so we now have processors that we hope to just run without crashing and not so much try to optimize for. There are so many bugs and chip variations that most of the compiler work is avoiding the bugs. Bottom line, gcc has singlehandedly destroyed the compiler world.
(4) See (2) above. Don't bank on it. Your operating system that you want to run this on will likely not install on the older processor anyway, saving you the pain. For the same reason that the binaries optimized for your pentium III ran slower on your Pentium 4 and vice versa. Code written to work well on multi core processors will run slower on single core processors than if you had optimized the same application for a single core processor.
The root of the problem is the x86 instruction set is dreadful. So many far superior instructions sets have come along that do not require hardware tricks to make them faster every generation. But the wintel machine created two monopolies and the others couldnt penetrate the market. My friends keep reminding me that these x86 machines are microcoded such that you really dont see the instruction set inside. Which angers me even more that the horrible isa is just an interpretation layer. It is kinda like using Java. The problems you have outlined in your questions will continue so long as intel stays on top, if the replacement does not become the monopoly then we will be stuck forever in the Java model where you are one side or the other of a common denominator, either you emulate the common platform on your specific hardware, or you are writing apps and compiling to the common platform.