The code below performs the operation the same operation on gpuArrays a and b in two different ways. The first part computes (a'*(a*b)')' , while the second part computes a*b*a. The results are then verified to be the same.
%function test
clear
rng('default');rng(1);
a=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
b=rand(3000,3000);
a=gpuArray(a);
b=gpuArray(b);
tic;
c1=gather(transpose(transpose(a)*transpose(a*b)));
disp(['time for (a''*(a*b)'')'': ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
clearvars -except c1
rng('default');
rng(1)
a=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
b=rand(3000,3000);
a=gpuArray(a);
b=gpuArray(b);
tic;
c2=gather(a*b*a);
disp(['time for a*b*a: ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
disp(['error = ',num2str(max(max(abs(c1-c2))))])
%end
However, computing (a'*(a*b)')' is roughly 4 times faster than computing a*b*a. Here is the output of the above script in R2018a on an Nvidia K20 (I've tried different versions and different GPUs with the similar behaviour).
>> test
time for (a'*(a*b)')': 0.43234s
time for a*b*a: 1.7175s
error = 2.0009e-11
Even more strangely, if the first and last lines of the above script are uncommented (to turn it into a function), then both take the longer amount of time (~1.7s instead of ~0.4s). Below is the output for this case:
>> test
time for (a'*(a*b)')': 1.717s
time for a*b*a: 1.7153s
error = 1.0914e-11
I'd like to know what is causing this behaviour, and how to perform a*b*a or (a'*(a*b)')' or both in the shorter amount of time (i.e. ~0.4s rather than ~1.7s) inside a matlab function rather than inside a script.
There seem to be an issue with multiplication of two sparse matrices on GPU. time for sparse by full matrix is more than 1000 times faster than sparse by sparse. A simple example:
str={'sparse*sparse','sparse*full'};
for ii=1:2
rng(1);
a=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
b=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
if ii==2
b=full(b);
end
a=gpuArray(a);
b=gpuArray(b);
tic
c=a*b;
disp(['time for ',str{ii},': ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
end
In your context, it is the last multiplication which does it. to demonstrate I replace a with a duplicate c, and multiply by it twice, once as sparse and once as full matrix.
str={'a*b*a','a*b*full(a)'};
for ii=1:2
%rng('default');
rng(1)
a=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
b=rand(3000,3000);
rng(1)
c=sprand(3000,3000,0.1);
if ii==2
c=full(c);
end
a=gpuArray(a);
b=gpuArray(b);
c=gpuArray(c);
tic;
c1{ii}=a*b*c;
disp(['time for ',str{ii},': ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
end
disp(['error = ',num2str(max(max(abs(c1{1}-c1{2}))))])
I may be wrong, but my conclusion is that a * b * a involves multiplication of two sparse matrices (a and a again) and is not treated well, while using transpose() approach divides the process to two stage multiplication, in none of which there are two sparse matrices.
I got in touch with Mathworks tech support and Rylan finally shed some light on this issue. (Thanks Rylan!) His full response is below. The function vs script issue appears to be related to certain optimizations matlab applies automatically to functions (but not scripts) not working as expected.
Rylan's response:
Thank you for your patience on this issue. I have consulted with the MATLAB GPU computing developers to understand this better.
This issue is caused by internal optimizations done by MATLAB when encountering some specific operations like matrix-matrix multiplication and transpose. Some of these optimizations may be enabled specifically when executing a MATLAB function (or anonymous function) rather than a script.
When your initial code was being executed from a script, a particular matrix transpose optimization is not performed, which results in the 'res2' expression being faster than the 'res1' expression:
n = 2000;
a=gpuArray(sprand(n,n,0.01));
b=gpuArray(rand(n));
tic;res1=a*b*a;wait(gpuDevice);toc % Elapsed time is 0.884099 seconds.
tic;res2=transpose(transpose(a)*transpose(a*b));wait(gpuDevice);toc % Elapsed time is 0.068855 seconds.
However when the above code is placed in a MATLAB function file, an additional matrix transpose-times optimization is done which causes the 'res2' expression to go through a different code path (and different CUDA library function call) compared to the same line being called from a script. Therefore this optimization generates slower results for the 'res2' line when called from a function file.
To avoid this issue from occurring in a function file, the transpose and multiply operations would need to be split in a manner that stops MATLAB from applying this optimization. Separating each clause within the 'res2' statement seems to be sufficient for this:
tic;i1=transpose(a);i2=transpose(a*b);res3=transpose(i1*i2);wait(gpuDevice);toc % Elapsed time is 0.066446 seconds.
In the above line, 'res3' is being generated from two intermediate matrices: 'i1' and 'i2'. The performance (on my system) seems to be on par with that of the 'res2' expression when executed from a script; in addition the 'res3' expression also shows similar performance when executed from a MATLAB function file. Note however that additional memory may be used to store the transposed copy of the initial array. Please let me know if you see different performance behavior on your system, and I can investigate this further.
Additionally, the 'res3' operation shows faster performance when measured with the 'gputimeit' function too. Please refer to the attached 'testscript2.m' file for more information on this. I have also attached 'test_v2.m' which is a modification of the 'test.m' function in your Stack Overflow post.
Thank you for reporting this issue to me. I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by this issue. I have created an internal bug report to notify the MATLAB developers about this behavior. They may provide a fix for this in a future release of MATLAB.
Since you had an additional question about comparing the performance of GPU code using 'gputimeit' vs. using 'tic' and 'toc', I just wanted to provide one suggestion which the MATLAB GPU computing developers had mentioned earlier. It is generally good to also call 'wait(gpuDevice)' before the 'tic' statements to ensure that GPU operations from the previous lines don't overlap in the measurement for the next line. For example, in the following lines:
b=gpuArray(rand(n));
tic; res1=a*b*a; wait(gpuDevice); toc
if the 'wait(gpuDevice)' is not called before the 'tic', some of the time taken to construct the 'b' array from the previous line may overlap and get counted in the time taken to execute the 'res1' expression. This would be preferred instead:
b=gpuArray(rand(n));
wait(gpuDevice); tic; res1=a*b*a; wait(gpuDevice); toc
Apart from this, I am not seeing any specific issues in the way that you are using the 'tic' and 'toc' functions. However note that using 'gputimeit' is generally recommended over using 'tic' and 'toc' directly for GPU-related profiling.
I will go ahead and close this case for now, but please let me know if you have any further questions about this.
%testscript2.m
n = 2000;
a = gpuArray(sprand(n, n, 0.01));
b = gpuArray(rand(n));
gputimeit(#()transpose_mult_fun(a, b))
gputimeit(#()transpose_mult_fun_2(a, b))
function out = transpose_mult_fun(in1, in2)
i1 = transpose(in1);
i2 = transpose(in1*in2);
out = transpose(i1*i2);
end
function out = transpose_mult_fun_2(in1, in2)
out = transpose(transpose(in1)*transpose(in1*in2));
end
.
function test_v2
clear
%% transposed expression
n = 2000;
rng('default');rng(1);
a = sprand(n, n, 0.1);
b = rand(n, n);
a = gpuArray(a);
b = gpuArray(b);
tic;
c1 = gather(transpose( transpose(a) * transpose(a * b) ));
disp(['time for (a''*(a*b)'')'': ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
clearvars -except c1
%% non-transposed expression
rng('default');
rng(1)
n = 2000;
a = sprand(n, n, 0.1);
b = rand(n, n);
a = gpuArray(a);
b = gpuArray(b);
tic;
c2 = gather(a * b * a);
disp(['time for a*b*a: ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
disp(['error = ',num2str(max(max(abs(c1-c2))))])
%% sliced equivalent
rng('default');
rng(1)
n = 2000;
a = sprand(n, n, 0.1);
b = rand(n, n);
a = gpuArray(a);
b = gpuArray(b);
tic;
intermediate1 = transpose(a);
intermediate2 = transpose(a * b);
c3 = gather(transpose( intermediate1 * intermediate2 ));
disp(['time for split equivalent: ' , num2str(toc),'s'])
disp(['error = ',num2str(max(max(abs(c1-c3))))])
end
EDIT 2 I might have been right, see this other answer
EDIT: They use MAGMA, which is column major. My answer does not hold, however I will leave it here for a while in case it can help crack this strange behavior.
The below answer is wrong
This is my guess, I can not 100% tell you without knowing the code under MATLAB's hood.
Hypothesis: MATLABs parallel computing code uses CUDA libraries, not their own.
Important information
MATLAB is column major and CUDA is row major.
There is no such things as 2D matrices, only 1D matrices with 2 indices
Why does this matter? Well because CUDA is highly optimized code that uses memory structure to maximize cache hits per kernel (the slowest operation on GPUs is reading memory). This means a standard CUDA matrix multiplication code will exploit the order of memory reads to make sure they are adjacent. However, what is adjacent memory in row-major is not in column-major.
So, there are 2 solutions to this as someone writing software
Write your own column-major algebra libraries in CUDA
Take every input/output from MATLAB and transpose it (i.e. convert from column-major to row major)
They have done point 2, and assuming that there is a smart JIT compiler for MATLAB parallel processing toolbox (reasonable assumption), for the second case, it takes a and b, transposes them, does the maths, and transposes the output when you gather.
In the first case however, you already do not need to transpose the output, as it is internally already transposed and the JIT catches this, so instead of calling gather(transpose( XX )) it just skips the output transposition is side. The same with transpose(a*b). Note that transpose(a*b)=transpose(b)*transpose(a), so suddenly no transposes are needed (they are all internally skipped). A transposition is a costly operation.
Indeed there is a weird thing here: making the code a function suddenly makes it slow. My best guess is that because the JIT behaves differently in different situations, it doesn't catch all this transpose stuff inside and just does all the operations anyway, losing the speed up.
Interesting observation: It takes the same time in CPU than GPU to do a*b*a in my PC.
Related
Old Title: *Small matrix multiplication much slower in R2016b than R2016a*
(update below)
I find that multiplication of small matrices seems much smaller in R2016b than R2016a. Here's a minimal example:
r = rand(50,100);
s = rand(100,100);
tic; r * s; toc
This takes about 0.0012s in R2016a and 0.018s R2016b.
Creating an artificial loop to make sure this isn't just some initial overhead or something leads to the same loss factor:
tic; for i = 1:1000, a = r*s; end, toc
This takes about 0.18s in R2016a and 2.1s R2016b.
Once I make the matrices much bigger, say r = rand(500,1000); and s = rand(1000,1000), the version behave similarly (R2016b even seems to be ~15% faster). Anyone have any insight as to why this is, or can verify this behavior on another system?
I wonder if it has to do with the new arithmetic expansions implementation (if this feature has some cost for small matrix multiplication): http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2016/10/24/matlab-arithmetic-expands-in-r2016b/
update
After many tests, I discovered that this difference was not between MATLAB versions (my apologies). Instead, it seems to be a difference of what's in my base workspace... and worse, the type of variable that's in the base workspace.
I cleared a huge workspace (which had many large cell arrays with many small, differently sized matrix entries). If I clear the variables and do the timing of r*s, I get much faster runtime (x10-x100) than before the workspace was loaded.
So the question is, why does having variables in the workspace affect the matrix multiplication of two small variables? And even more, why does having certain types of variables slow down the workspace dramatically.
Here's an example where a large variable in cell form in the workspace affects the runtime of the matrix multiplication or two unrelated matrices. If I collapse this cell to a matrix, the effect goes away.
clear;
ticReps = 10000;
nCells = 100;
aa = rand(50,100);
bb = rand(100, 100);
% test original timing
tic; for i = 1:ticReps, aa * bb; end
fprintf('original: %3.3f\n', toc);
% make some matrices inside a large number of cells
q = cell(nCells, nCells);
for i = 1:nCells * nCells
q{i} = sprand(10000,10000, 0.0001);
end
% the timing again
tic; for i = 1:ticReps, aa * bb; end
fprintf('after large q cell: %3.3f\n', toc);
% make q into a matrix
q = cat(2, q{:});
% the timing again
tic; for i = 1:ticReps, aa * bb; end
fprintf('after large q matrix: %3.3f\n', toc);
clear q
% the timing again
tic; for i = 1:ticReps, aa * bb; end
fprintf('after clear q: %3.3f\n', toc);
In both staged, q takes up about 2Gb. Result:
original: 0.183
after large q cell: 0.320
after large q matrix: 0.175
after clear q: 0.184
I've received an update from mathworks.
As far as I understand it, they say that this is the fault of the Windows memory manager, which allots memory to large cell arrays in a fairly fragmented manner. Since the (unrelated) multiplication needs memory (for the output), getting this piece of memory now takes longer time due to the memory fragmentation caused by the cell. Linux (as tested) does not have this issue.
I am writing a code that generates a function f in a loop. This function f changes in every loop, for example from f = x + 2x to f = 3x^2 + 1 (randomly), and I want to evaluate f at different points in every loop. I have tried using subs, eval, matlabFunction etc but it is still running slowly. How would you tackle a problem like this in the most efficient way?
This is as fast as I have been able to do it. ****matlabFunction and subs go slower than this.
The code below is my solution and it is one loop. In my larger code the function f and point x0 change in every loop so you can imagine why I want this to go as fast as possible. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could go through this, and give me any pointers. If my coding is crap feel free to tell me :D
x = sym('x',[2,1]);
f = [x(1)-x(1)cos(x(2)), x(2)-3x(2)^2*cos(x(1))];
J = jacobian(f,x);
x0 = [2,1];
N=length(x0); % Number of equations
%% Transform into string
fstr = map2mat(char(f));
Jstr = map2mat(char(J));
% replace every occurence of 'xi' with 'x(i)'
Jstr = addPar(Jstr,N);
fstr = addPar(fstr,N);
x = x0;
phi0 = eval(fstr)
J = eval(Jstr)
function str = addPar(str,N)
% pstr = addPar(str,N)
% Transforms every occurence of xi in str into x(i)
% N is the maximum value of i
% replace every occurence of xi with x(i)
% note that we do this backwards to avoid x10 being
% replaced with x(1)0
for i=N:-1:1
is = num2str(i);
xis = ['x' is];
xpis = ['x(' is ')'];
str = strrep(str,xis,xpis);
end
function r = map2mat(r)
% MAP2MAT Maple to MATLAB string conversion.
% Lifted from the symbolic toolbox source code
% MAP2MAT(r) converts the Maple string r containing
% matrix, vector, or array to a valid MATLAB string.
%
% Examples: map2mat(matrix([[a,b], [c,d]]) returns
% [a,b;c,d]
% map2mat(array([[a,b], [c,d]]) returns
% [a,b;c,d]
% map2mat(vector([[a,b,c,d]]) returns
% [a,b,c,d]
% Deblank.
r(findstr(r,' ')) = [];
% Special case of the empty matrix or vector
if strcmp(r,'vector([])') | strcmp(r,'matrix([])') | ...
strcmp(r,'array([])')
r = [];
else
% Remove matrix, vector, or array from the string.
r = strrep(r,'matrix([[','['); r = strrep(r,'array([[','[');
r = strrep(r,'vector([','['); r = strrep(r,'],[',';');
r = strrep(r,']])',']'); r = strrep(r,'])',']');
end
There are several ways to get huge boosts in speed for this sort of problem:
The java GUI front end slows everything down. Go back to version 2010a or earlier. Go back to when it was based on C or fortran. The MATLAB script runs as fast as if you had put it into the MATLAB "compiler".
If you have MatLab compiler (or builder, I forget which) but not the coder, then you can process your code and have it run a few times faster without modifying the code.
write it to a file, then call it as a function. I have done this for changing finite-element expressions, so large ugly math that makes $y = 3x^2 +1$ look simple. In that it gave me solid speed increase.
vectorize, vectorize, vectorize. It used to reliably give 10x to 12x speed increase. Pull it out of loops. The java, I think, obscures this some by making everything slower.
have you "profiled" your function to make sure that "eval" or such are the problem? If you fix "eval" and your bottleneck is elsewhere then you will have problems.
If you have the choice between eval and subs, stick with eval. subs gives you a symbolic solution, not a numeric one.
If there is a clean way to have multiple instances of MatLab running, especially if you have a decently core-rich cpu that MatLab does not fully utilize, then get several of them going. If you are at an educational institution you might try running several different versions (2010a, 2010b, 2009a,...) on the same system. I (fuzzily) recall they didn't collide when I did it. Running more than about 8 started slowing things down more than it improved them. Make sure they aren't colliding on file access if you are using files to share control.
You could write your program in LabVIEW (not MathScript, not MatLab) and because it is a compiled language, there are times that code can run 1000x faster.
You could go all numeric and make it a matrix activity. This depends on your code, but if you could randomly populate the columns in the matrix then matrix multiply it to a matrix $ \left[ 1, x, x^{2}, ...\right] $, that would likely be several hundreds or thousands of times faster than your current level of equation handling and still in MatLab.
About your coding:
don't redeclare "x" as a symbol every loop, that is expensive.
what is this "map2mat" then "addPar" stuff?
the string handling functions are horrible for runtime. Stick to one language. The symbolic toolbox IS maple, and you don't have to get goofy hand-made parsing to make it work with the rest of MatLab.
When multiplying two matrices, I tried the following two options:
1)
res = X*A;
2)
for i = 1:size(A,2)
res(:,i) = X*A(:,i);
end
I preallocated memory for res in both. And surprisingly, I found option 2 to be faster.
Can someone explain how this is so?
edit:
I tried
K=10000;
clear t1 t2
t1=zeros(K,1);
t2=zeros(K,1);
for k=1:K
clear res
x = rand(100,100);
a = rand(100,100);
tic
res = x*a;
t1(k) = toc;
end
for k=1:K
clear res2
res2 = zeros(100,100);
x = rand(100,100);
a = rand(100,100);
tic
for i = 1:100
res2(:,i) = x*a(:,i);
end
t2(k) = toc;
end
I run both codes in a loop 1000 times. In average (but not always) the first vectorized code was 3-4 times faster. I cleared the result variables and preallocated before starting timer.
x = rand(100,100);
a = rand(100,100);
K=1000;
clear t1 t2
t1=zeros(K,1);
t2=zeros(K,1);
for k=1:K
clear res
tic
res = x*a;
t1(k) = toc;
end
for k=1:K
clear res2
res2 = zeros(100,100);
tic
for i = 1:100
res2(:,i) = x*a(:,i);
end
t2(k) = toc;
end
So, never make a timing conclusion based on a single run.
I believe I can chime in on the variation in timings between the two methods, as well as why people are getting different relative speeds.
Before Matlab version 2008a (or a version near that release), for loops took a major hit in any Matlab code because the interpreter (a layer between the very readable script and a lower level implementation of the code) would have to re-interpret the code each time through the for loop.
Since that release, the interpreter has gotten progressively better so, when running a modern version of Matlab, the interpreter can look at your code and say "Ah ha! I know what he is doing, let me optimize it just a bit" and avoid the hit it would otherwise take by reinterpreting the code.
I would expect the two ways of performing matrix multiplies to evaluate in the same amount of time, why the for loop implementation runs faster is because of some detail in the optimizations of the interpreter that us mere mortals are not privy to know.
One broad lesson we should take from this, is not all versions are equal. I do work on a couple of bleeding edge cases using two Matlab add ons, the SimBiology and the Parallel Computing Toolboxes, both of which (especially if you want them to work together) are version dependent in speed of execution, and from time to time other stability issues. As such, I keep the three most recent releases of Matlab, will test that I get the same answers out of each version, and I'll occasionally roll back to an earlier version if I find issues with some features. This is probably overkill for most people, but gives you an idea of version differences.
Hope this helps.
Edits:
To clarify, code vectorization is still important. But given a script like:
x_slow = zeros(1,1e5);
x_fast = zeros(1,1e5);
tic;
for i=1:1e5
x_slow(i) = log(i);
end
time_slow = toc; % evaluates for me in .0132 seconds
tic;
x_fast = log(1:1e5);
time_fast = toc; % evaluates for me in .0055 seconds
The disparity between time_slow and time_fast has reduced in the past several versions based on improvements in the interpreter. The example I saw I believe was on 2000a vs. 2008b, but that's subject to my recollection.
There is something else that might be going on that was addressed by Oli and Yuk. There is often a difference between the time_1 and time_2 in:
tic; x = log(1:1e5); time_1 = toc
tic; x = log(1:1e5); time_2 = toc
So the test of one million evaluations vs. one evaluation is valuable, depending on where in memory x is (in cache or no).
Hope this helps again.
This may well be an effect of caching. a is already in the cache by the time you do the second version, so it has an advantage. Try creating an independent set of inputs to make it fair. Also, it's probably better to measure the time of e.g. 1 million iterations of this, in order to eliminate typical variations due to outside effects.
It looks to me that you are not multiplying matrix properly, you need to sum all the products from ith row of X matrix and jth column of A matrix, that might be a reason.
Look here to see how it's done.
This question is related to these two:
Introduction to vectorizing in MATLAB - any good tutorials?
filter that uses elements from two arrays at the same time
Basing on the tutorials I read, I was trying to vectorize some procedure that takes really a lot of time.
I've rewritten this:
function B = bfltGray(A,w,sigma_r)
dim = size(A);
B = zeros(dim);
for i = 1:dim(1)
for j = 1:dim(2)
% Extract local region.
iMin = max(i-w,1);
iMax = min(i+w,dim(1));
jMin = max(j-w,1);
jMax = min(j+w,dim(2));
I = A(iMin:iMax,jMin:jMax);
% Compute Gaussian intensity weights.
F = exp(-0.5*(abs(I-A(i,j))/sigma_r).^2);
B(i,j) = sum(F(:).*I(:))/sum(F(:));
end
end
into this:
function B = rngVect(A, w, sigma)
W = 2*w+1;
I = padarray(A, [w,w],'symmetric');
I = im2col(I, [W,W]);
H = exp(-0.5*(abs(I-repmat(A(:)', size(I,1),1))/sigma).^2);
B = reshape(sum(H.*I,1)./sum(H,1), size(A, 1), []);
Where
A is a matrix 512x512
w is half of the window size, usually equal 5
sigma is a parameter in range [0 1] (usually one of: 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3)
So the I matrix would have 512x512x121 = 31719424 elements
But this version seems to be as slow as the first one, but in addition it uses a lot of memory and sometimes causes memory problems.
I suppose I've made something wrong. Probably some logic mistake regarding vectorizing. Well, in fact I'm not surprised - this method creates really big matrices and probably the computations are proportionally longer.
I have also tried to write it using nlfilter (similar to the second solution given by Jonas) but it seems to be hard since I use Matlab 6.5 (R13) (there are no sophisticated function handles available).
So once again, I'm asking not for ready solution, but for some ideas that would help me to solve this in reasonable time. Maybe you will point me what I did wrong.
Edit:
As Mikhail suggested, the results of profiling are as follows:
65% of time was spent in the line H= exp(...)
25% of time was used by im2col
How big are I and H (i.e. numel(I)*8 bytes)? If you start paging, then the performance of your second solution is going to be affected very badly.
To test whether you really have a problem due to too large arrays, you can try and measure the speed of the calculation using tic and toc for arrays A of increasing size. If the execution time increases faster than by the square of the size of A, or if the execution time jumps at some size of A, you can try and split the padded I into a number of sub-arrays and perform the calculations like that.
Otherwise, I don't see any obvious places where you could be losing lots of time. Well, maybe you could skip the reshape, by replacing B with A in your function (saves a little memory as well), and writing
A(:) = sum(H.*I,1)./sum(H,1);
You may also want to look into upgrading to a more recent version of Matlab - they've worked hard on improving performance.
I have approximately 5,000 matrices with the same number of rows and varying numbers of columns (20 x ~200). Each of these matrices must be compared against every other in a dynamic programming algorithm.
In this question, I asked how to perform the comparison quickly and was given an excellent answer involving a 2D convolution. Serially, iteratively applying that method, like so
list = who('data_matrix_prefix*')
H = cell(numel(list),numel(list));
for i=1:numel(list)
for j=1:numel(list)
if i ~= j
eval([ 'H{i,j} = compare(' char(list(i)) ',' char(list(j)) ');']);
end
end
end
is fast for small subsets of the data (e.g. for 9 matrices, 9*9 - 9 = 72 calls are made in ~1 s, 870 calls in ~2.5 s).
However, operating on all the data requires almost 25 million calls.
I have also tried using deal() to make a cell array composed entirely of the next element in data, so I could use cellfun() in a single loop:
# who(), load() and struct2cell() calls place k data matrices in a 1D cell array called data.
nextData = cell(k,1);
for i=1:k
[nextData{:}] = deal(data{i});
H{:,i} = cellfun(#compare,data,nextData,'UniformOutput',false);
end
Unfortunately, this is not really any faster, because all the time is in compare(). Both of these code examples seem ill-suited for parallelization. I'm having trouble figuring out how to make my variables sliced.
compare() is totally vectorized; it uses matrix multiplication and conv2() exclusively (I am under the impression that all of these operations, including the cellfun(), should be multithreaded in MATLAB?).
Does anyone see a (explicitly) parallelized solution or better vectorization of the problem?
Note
I realize both my examples are inefficient - the first would be twice as fast if it calculated a triangular cell array, and the second is still calculating the self comparisons, as well. But the time savings for a good parallelization are more like a factor of 16 (or 72 if I install MATLAB on everyone's machines).
Aside
There is also a memory issue. I used a couple of evals to append each column of H into a file, with names like H1, H2, etc. and then clear Hi. Unfortunately, the saves are very slow...
Does
compare(a,b) == compare(b,a)
and
compare(a,a) == 1
If so, change your loop
for i=1:numel(list)
for j=1:numel(list)
...
end
end
to
for i=1:numel(list)
for j= i+1 : numel(list)
...
end
end
and deal with the symmetry and identity case. This will cut your calculation time by half.
The second example can be easily sliced for use with the Parallel Processing Toolbox. This toolbox distributes iterations of your code among up to 8 different local processors. If you want to run the code on a cluster, you also need the Distributed Computing Toolbox.
%# who(), load() and struct2cell() calls place k data matrices in a 1D cell array called data.
parfor i=1:k-1 %# this will run the loop in parallel with the parallel processing toolbox
%# only make the necessary comparisons
H{i+1:k,i} = cellfun(#compare,data(i+1:k),repmat(data(i),k-i,1),'UniformOutput',false);
%# if the above doesn't work, try this
hSlice = cell(k,1);
hSlice{i+1:k} = cellfun(#compare,data(i+1:k),repmat(data(i),k-i,1),'UniformOutput',false);
H{:,i} = hSlice;
end
If I understand correctly you have to perform 5000^2 matrix comparisons ? Rather than try to parallelise the compare function, perhaps you should think of your problem being composed of 5000^2 tasks ? The Matlab Parallel Compute Toolbox supports task-based parallelism. Unfortunately my experience with PCT is with parallelisation of large linear algebra type problems so I can't really tell you much more than that. The documentation will undoubtedly help you more.