Most of the benchmarks for gpu performance and load testing are graphics related. Is there any benchmark that is computationally intensive but not graphics related ? I am using
DELL XPS 15 laptop,
nvidia GT 525M graphics card,
Ubuntu 11.04 with bumblebee installed.
I want to load test my system to come up with a max load the graphics cards can handle. Are there any non-graphics benchmarks for gpu ?
What exactly do you want to measure?
To measure GFLOPS on the card just write a simple Kernel in Cuda (or OpenCL).
If you have never written anything in CUDA let me know and i can post something for you.
If your application is not computing intensive (take a look at a roofline paper) then I/O will be the bottleneck. Getting data from global (card) memory to the processor takes 100's of cycles.
On the other hand if your application IS compute intensive then just time it and calculate how many bytes you process per second. In order to hit the maximum GFLOPS (your card can do 230) you need many FLOPs per memory access, so that the processors are busy and not stalling for memory and switching threads.
Related
My Graphics program with OpenGL ES 2.0 runs in VxWorks SMP (dual core), through the spy command, it is found that one CPU utilization rate is close to 100%, and the other CPU is almost in idle state. Meanwhile, the drawing performance of the program (measured by frames per second ) drops more than that of single core in VxWorks UP. What can be done to reduce the CPU utilization, or let the CPUs work balance, so as to improve the performance of graphics program?
(the OS version is VxWorks 6.9, using the ARMARCH7gnu compiler with the windriver workbench 3.3, and the program runs on the dual core development board of armv8 architecture.)
You might check with taskCpuAffinitySet() to leverage manually the load balancing on your system.
If you could use the system viewer you might be able to identify the behavior and see what is explaining the FPS drop.
I'm running some GPU-accelerated PyTorch code and training it against a custom dataset, but while monitoring the state of my workstation during the process, I see GPU usage along the following lines:
I have never written my own GPU primitives, but I have a long history of doing low-level optimizations for CPU-intensive workloads and my experience there makes me concerned that while pytorch/torchvision are offloading the work to the GPU, it may not be an ideal workload for GPU acceleration.
When optimizing CPU-bound code, the goal is to try and get the CPU to perform as much (meaningful) work as possible in a unit of time: a supposedly CPU-bound task that shows only 20% CPU utilization (of a single core or of all cores, depending on whether the task is parallelizable or not) is a task that is not being performed efficiently because the CPU is sitting idle when ideally it would be working towards your goal. Low CPU usage means that something other than number crunching is taking up your wall clock time, whether it's inefficient locking, heavy context switching, pipeline flushes, locking IO in the main loop, etc. which prevents the workload from properly saturating the CPU.
When looking at the GPU utilization in the chart above, and again speaking as a complete novice when it comes to GPU utilization, it strikes me that the GPU usage is extremely low and appears to be limited by the rate at which data is being copied into the GPU memory. Is this assumption correct? I would expect to see a spike in copy (to GPU) followed by an extended period of calculations/transforms, followed by a brief copy (back from the GPU), repeated ad infinitum.
I notice that despite the low (albeit constant) copy utilization, the GPU memory is constantly peaking at the 8GB limit. Can I assume the workload is being limited by the low GPU memory available (i.e. not maxing out the copy bandwidth because there's only so much that can be copied)?
Does that mean this is a workload better suited for the CPU (in this particular case with this RTX 2080 and in general with any card)?
I have downloaded and unzipped sumo-win64-0.32.0 and running sumo.exe this on a powerful machine (64GB ram, Xeon CPU E5-1650 v4 3.6GHz) for about 140k trips, 108k edges, and 25k vehicles types which are departed in the first 30 min of simulation. I have noticed that my CPU is utilized only 30% and Memory only 38%, Is there any way to increase the speed by forcing sumo to use more CPU and ram, or possibly run in parallel? From "Can SUMO be run in parallel (on multiple cores or computers)?
The simulation itself always runs on a single core."
it appears that parallel processing is not possible t, but what about dedicating more CPU and ram?
Windows usually shows the CPU utilization such that 100% means all cores are used, so 30% is probably already more than one core and there is no way of increasing that with a single threaded application as sumo. Also if your scenario fits within RAM completely there is no point of increasing that. You might want to try one of the several parallelization approaches SUMO has but none of them got further than some toy examples (and none is in the official distribution) and the speed improvements are sometimes only marginal. Probably the best you can do is to do some profiling and find the performance bottlenecks and/or send your results to the developers.
When running a TensorFlow job I sometimes get a non-fatal error that says GPU memory exceeded, and then I see the "Shared memory GPU usage" go up on the Performance Monitor on Windows 10.
How does TensorFlow achieve this? I have looked at CUDA documentation and not found a reference to the Dedicated and Shared concepts used in the Performance Monitor. There is a Shared Memory concept in CUDA but I think it is something on the device, not the RAM I see in the Performance Monitor, which is allocated by the BIOS from CPU RAM.
Note: A similar question was asked but not answered by another poster.
Shared memory in windows 10 does not refer to the same concept as cuda shared memory (or local memory in opencl), it refers to host accessible/allocated memory from the GPU. For integrated graphics processing host and device memory is usually the same as shared thanks to both the cpu and gpu being located on the same die and being able to access the same ram. For dedicated graphics with their own memory, this is separate memory allocated on the host side for use by the GPU.
Shared memory for compute APIs such as through GLSL compute shaders, or Nvidia CUDA kernels refer to a programmer managed cache layer (some times refereed to as "scratch pad memory") which on Nvidia devices, exists per SM, and can only be accessed by a single SM and is usually between 32kB to 96kB per SM. Its purpose is to speed up memory access to data which is used often.
If you see and increase shared memory used in Tensorflow, you have a dedicated graphics card, and you are experiencing "GPU memory exceeded" it most likely means you are using too much memory on the GPU itself, so it is trying to allocate memory from elsewhere (IE from system RAM). This potentially can make your program much slower as the bandwidth and latency will be much worse on non device memory for a dedicated graphics card.
I think I figured this out by accident. The "Shared GPU Memory" reported by Windows 10 Task Manager Performance tab does get used, if there are multiple processes hitting the GPU simultaneously. I discovered this by writing a Python programming that used multiprocessing to queue up multiple GPU tasks, and I saw the "Shared GPU memory" start filling up. This is the only way I've seen it happen.
So it is only for queueing tasks. Each individual task is still limited to the onboard DRAM minus whatever is permanently allocated to actual graphics processing, which seems to be around 1GB.
I have an application that is written to use the Bullet physics engine. I am running it on an Intel i7 2600K CPU with 8 cores. The application has to process millions of chunks of physics work, each of which can be done independently. It currently runs with 8 processes, each process working through its quota of the total independently. In summary, this work has a lot of easy parallelism.
Assuming that I can acquire the best NVIDIA consumer graphics card (say Titan), what is the ballpark improvement in the physics engine performance I can see by switching from Bullet on CPU to Physx on GPU? That is, approximately how much faster will this application run if rewritten for Physx?
I found a few papers that compare the result quality between Bullet and Physx, but could not find anything about the performance comparison.
Pierre Terdimann has done an extensive series of performance comparisons between Bullet 2.81 and PhysX 2.8.4, 3.2 and 3.3 here. These are comparisons between Bullet and PhysX, both running on CPU. It can be seen that the performance difference between the two is dependent on what features of the engine are being used. For a few features, the performance is about the same, while for most others there is a 3-5x speedup.
He also mentions in the addendum that not all physics features have been ported to PhysX on GPU. Cloth and particles can be accelerated on GPU, while rigid bodies is being currently ported to GPU, in a feature called GPU Rigid Bodies (GRB). If there is a feature that is GPU accelerated, then you can expect it to be faster than on CPU, but by how much is not clear.
I found this, it's not a comparison against any specific CPU physics engine but one hopes they are comparing like with like and running PhysX on the CPU.
So it's rather unspecific and from a FAQ by the makers of PhysX so take with a pinch of salt.
From here:
Running PhysX on a mid-to-high-end GeForce GPU will enable 10-20 times
more effects and visual fidelity than physics running on a high-end
CPU.
Lets say physx is doing particle interactions such as gravity of fluid movement. Then the cache control is very important since they are emberassingly parallel. You cannot directly control your CPU's cache but you can access to cache of titan which makes it maybe 100x faster than a 8-thread cpu.
If it is not so parallel and has many branching and doesnt have exhausting computations then it is around 10x-5x speedup(or whatever bandwidth ratio of graphics ram /main RAM).