3 ms·

This is a good introduction. I'm interested in finding articles that speculate about just how aligned the design requirements are between graphics, and most mat

• liuliu 17y ago
  I was puzzled how that can impact data mining or machine learning as a whole, too. The difference between data mining algorithms and image processing/string matching algorithms is huge. It requires more data to get some meaningful intermediate results on one computing kernel. For example, a typical scene in my research is to compare the performance of many proposed features (tens of thousands) against large volume of data, and pick the best one. It is an embarrassing parallelization problem, but the data throughput is huge. On supercomputers, it is easy since every computer can have a local copy of either feature set or data set. But for GPGPU, there is no way for each core to have a local copy of either set. Thus, to compare against each other, GPGPU must go back and forth to its shared memory, and the limited bandwidth may harm the performance badly. Disclaimer: I am not very experienced in GPGPU field, so my worrying may be proved wrong.
  • miloshh 17y ago
    The GPU cores share RAM, so there is no need to have local copies. Though if you run out of the 4GB available on Tesla/Quadro cards, it gets more complicated (but so would it on the CPU).
    • liuliu 17y ago
      I think that it is more relevant to the memory bandwidth (hundreds cores trying to access the same big chunk of memory).
  • andrewcooke 17y ago
    it's horribly hard to accurately predict what will work and what not, and they do have some caching ability (what would cache a texture map when rendering an image). but what you are perhaps missing is that it's ok for gpus to read memory, as long as you have enough threads. they can switch context very quickly, so one set of threads can request memory (hopefully a contiguous chunk) and then drop into the background and let another set of threads do some work (on the same processing unit). this is critical to their efficiency and is very different to a cpu, which instead relies on cache and "sits doing nothing" if it needs to read data from "afar" (obviously there are trade-offs - there's only so much local memory for state, for example). i worked on a problem that was not as "nice" as you might hope - the memory access was unpredictable to some degree. but i still got a speed up of "tens" on a cheap ($200) graphics card, compared to a meaty xeon. it's more robust than you might expect.
    • liuliu 17y ago
      That's true, it is hard to predict. But I really interested to see what is the most optimistic prediction for my particular problem to work on the GPGPU. In this case, I don't think LRU cache will do much help since it has a uniform access pattern (every piece of data has to be examined to every proposed feature). However, you do remind me that may be load-ahead fashion of caching strategy will help. And if the needed data is load to cache with some synchronization method to guarantee all current running kernel will use the piece of data to its examining feature, the performance gain may achieved. Actually, I gonna spend this weekend to try out.
      • andrewcooke 17y ago
        i don't really get what you're doing, but have you considered making one dimension of your work vary over feature? if you arrange that correctly then you only need to scan the memory once (all features read the first byte of memory; then all features read the next...)
• andrewcooke 17y ago
  i would guess double precision support is pretty much a no-brainer. it's a deal breaker for many numerical applications and isn't that expensive (amd/ati have 64 bit support too on the latest firestream cards). fermi's cache, on the other hand, probably implies more trade-offs. but you can look at it as a necessary step in learning how to find a middle ground between gpus and cpus - which is the next big battle.