I have written a Forth Mandelbrot fractal plotter, and as much as a technical exercise as anything else I would like to try to speed it up with some parallel processing.
For the time being I would be happy if I could just use both of my cores (have one core do one half of the image and the other the other half).
I have noticed that Windows XP will quite happily manage two instances of Gforth and try use as much processor capacity as possible, so running two processes could be a start. However I am not sure if they can share memory, or if they can both write to a file at the same time (or how to tell one process to start writing at x bytes from the start of the file).
In summary, how can I do parallel processing using Gforth on Windows XP?
You could have each program do a grid of pixels rather than a single pixel, and then recombine them in the end.
AFAIK, pixels in Mandelbrot sets are independent of each other (someone correct me if I am wrong), however the computation of each of them is non-deterministic, making it a hard problem to properly parallelize, without having some kind of central dispatch thread (then again you run into potential problems with contention).
See GForth Pipes.
Related
So I have my .exe ready to deploy, and for distribution, I need to know the minimal requirements for my program to run on a machine... and I really don't know how to do that.
Is there a way to know that ? Some kind of benchmark ? Or must I just set things as I think it'll work ?
Maybe should I just buy all existing components until I find the minimal ? :')
Well, thanks for your answers.
Start by seeing the first Windows' version you can deploy on (Windows XP? Vista?).
If your program is cpu or gpu intensive, and has a fixed time loop (eg. game) then you'll have to do benchmarks.
You should look at several old vs new CPUs/GPUs and trying to "guess" based on online specs posted online what the minimal requirement is. For example, if your program can't run on an old cpu, but runs blazingly fast on a new one, try to find the model that -barely- runs it, which will obviously be one somewhere in the middle.
If your program requires other special things, specify them (eg. USB 3.0, controllers supported...).
Otherwise, if your program loads slower but doesn't have runtime issues, the minimum specs should be indicative of a reasonable loading time (a minute seems to be the standard now, sadly).
Additionally, if your program is memory hungry (both hard drive or RAM), you must indicate this.
For hard drive memory, simply state your program size, along with the files included with it.
For RAM, use a profiler - it will tell you how much memory your program is using.
I've completely skipped over the fact that, in some computers, the bottleneck might be the cpu, and it might be the gpu in others. You need to know which is the bottleneck to make your judgement.
To find out is a rather simple process - remove expensive gpu operations (lower texture resolutions, turn off shaders). If the program still runs slowly, then the bottleneck is the cpu.
edit: this is a simplification of the problem and hardware is a little more complicated than this (slower multi-core cpus vs faster one-core cpus vary their performance depending on how many cores a program uses and how / a program may require a gpu to have less memory but more processing power, or the opposite... even heat dissipation can affect component efficiency: your program might run fine for 20 minutes but start to slow down if the cpu isn't cooled down properly), but "minimal hardware requirements" aren't exactly precise so this method is appropriate.
tl;dr of the spoiler:
In short, there are so many factors that affect performance that you can't measure it, so just a rough estimation is good.
I am working on Image Processing . I am having a computer with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 -3770 CPU #3.40 GHz, RAM 4 GB Configuration. I just want parallelize our code of an algorithm of image processing using SPMD command of PCT. For this i have divided image vertically into 8 parts and send it different labs and by using SPMD command i executed algorithm of image processing parallely on different parts on different lab.
I got the right answer which i got from sequential code. But this is taking more time than a sequential code . I have tried this with very largest image to smallest image but didn't get the significant result.
Suggest me how can i get significant speed up using SPMD command?
Since you did not provide any code I'll have to stick to a general answer. In all parallel computing there are several design considerations, the two most important are: is your code able to run in parallel, and secondly: how much communication overhead do you create.
Calling workers means sending information back and forth, so there is an optimum in parallel computing. Make sure you provide your workers with enough work so that the communication to and from your workers requires less time than the speed-up gained from parallel computing.
Last but not least: if you provide a working code example the community is able to help you much better!
If you want to apply the same operation to several blocks within an image, then rather than worry about constructs such as spmd, you can just apply the command blockproc and set the UseParallel option to true. It will parallelize everything for you, without you needing to do anything.
If that doesn't work for you and you really have a requirement to implement your algorithm directly using spmd, you'll need to post some example code to indicate what you've tried, and where it's going wrong.
I'm working on an adaptive and Fully automatic segmentation algorithm under varying light condition , the core of this algorithm uses Particle swarm Optimization(PSO) to tune the fuzzy system and believe me it's very time consuming :| for only 5 particles and 100 iterations I have to wait 2 to 3 hours ! and it's just processing one image from my data set containing over 100 photos !
I'm using matlab R2013 ,with a intel coer i7-2670Qm # 2.2GHz //8.00GB RAM//64-bit operating system
the problem is : when starting the program it uses only 12%-16% of my CPU and only one core is working !!
I've searched a lot and came into matlabpool so I added this line to my code :
matlabpool open 8
now when I start the program the task manger shows 98% CPU usage, but it's just for a few seconds ! after that it came back to 12-13% CPU usage :|
Do you have any idea how can I get this code run faster ?!
12 Percent sounds like Matlab is using only one Thread/Core and this one with with full load, which is normal.
matlabpool open 8 is not enough, this simply opens workers. You have to use commands like parfor, to assign work to them.
Further to Daniel's suggestion, ideally to apply PARFOR you'd find a time-consuming FOR loop in you algorithm where the iterations are independent and convert that to PARFOR. Generally, PARFOR works best when applied at the outermost level possible. It's also definitely worth using the MATLAB profiler to help you optimise your serial code before you start adding parallelism.
With my own simulations I find that I cannot recode them using Parfor, the for loops I have are too intertwined to take advantage of multiple cores.
HOWEVER:
You can open a second (and third, and fourth etc) instance of Matlab and tell this additional instance to run another job. Each instance of matlab open will use a different core. So if you have a quadcore, you can have 4 instances open and get 100% efficiency by running code in all 4.
So, I gained efficiency by having multiple instances of matlab open at the same time and running a job. My jobs took 8 to 27 hours at a time, and as one might imagine without liquid cooling I burnt out my cpu fan and had to replace it.
Also do look into optimizing your matlab code, I recently optimized my code and now it runs 40% faster.
I am working on a time series based calculation. Each iteration of the calculation is independent. Could anyone share some tips / online primers on using utilising parallel processing in Matlab? How can this be specified inside the actual code?
Since you have access to the Parallel toolbox, I suggest that you first check whether you can do it the easy way.
Basically, instead of writing
for i=1:lots
out(:,i)=do(something);
end
You write
parfor i=1:lots
out(:,i)=do(something);
end
Then, you use matlabpool to create a number of workers (you can have a maximum of 8 on your local machine with the toolbox, and tons on a remote cluster if you also have a Distributed Computing Server license), and you run the code, and see nice speed gains when your iterations are run by 8 cores instead of one.
Even though the parfor route is the easiest, it may not work right out of the box, since you might do your indexing wrong, or you may be referencing an array in a problematic way etc. Look at the mlint warnings in the editor, read the documentation, and rely on good old trial and error, and you should figure it out reasonably fast. If you have nested loops, it's often best parallelize only the innermost one and ensure it does tons of iterations - this is not only good design, it also reduces the amount of code that could give you trouble.
Note that especially if you run the code on a local machine, you may run into memory issues (which might manifest in really slow execution in parallel mode because you're paging): Every worker gets a copy of the workspace, so if your calculation involves creating a 500MB array, 8 workers will need a total 4GB of RAM - and then you haven't even started counting the RAM of the parent process! In addition, it can be good to only use N-1 cores on your machine, so that there is still one core left for other processes that may run on the computer (such as a mandatory antivirus...).
Mathworks offers its own parallel computing toolbox. If you do not want to purchase that, there a few options
You could write your own mex file and use pthreads or OpenMP.
However make sure you do not call any Mex api in the parallel part of the code, because they arent thread safe
If you want coarser grained parallelism via MPI you can try pmatlab
Same with parmatlab
Edit: Adding link Parallel MATLAB with openmp mex files
I have only tried the first.
Don't forget that many Matlab functions are already multithreaded. By careful programming you may be able to take advantage of them -- check the documentation for your version as the Mathworks seem to be increasing the range and number of multithreaded functions with each new release. For example, it seems that 2010a has multithreaded ffts which may be useful for time series processing.
If the intrinsic multithreading is not what you need, then as #srean suggests, the Parallel Computing Toolbox is available. For my money (or rather, my employers' money) it's the way to go, allowing you to program in parallel in Matlab, rather than having to bolt things on. I have to admit, too, that I'm quite impressed by the toolbox and the facilities it offers.
Hey all. Im trying to sort out how to get MATLAB running as best as possible. I have a pretty decent new machine.
12GB RAM
Core i7 3.2Ghz Cpu
and lots of free space.
and a strong graphics card.
However when I run the benchmark test of MATLAB (command bench) it lists the computer as being near the worst, around a Windows XP single core 1.7Ghz machine.
Any ideas why and how I can improve this??
Thanks very much
Firstly, I would recommend re-running the bench command a few times to make sure MATLAB has fully loaded all the libraries etc. it needs. Much of MATLAB is loaded on demand, so it's always best to time the second or third run.
MATLAB automatically takes advantage of multiple cores when executing certain operations which are multithreaded. For example lots of elementwise operations such as +, .* and so on as well as BLAS-backed operations (and probably others). This page lists those things which are multithreaded.
Parallel Computing Toolbox is useful when MATLAB's intrinsic multithreading can't help (if it can, then it's usually the fastest way to do things). This gives you explicit parallelism via PARFOR, SPMD and distributed arrays.
You need the Parallel Processing Toolbox. A lot of MATLAB functions are multithreaded but to parallelize your own code, you'll need it. A dumb hack is to open several instances of command-line MATLAB. You could also write multithreaded MEX files but the right way to go about it would be the purchase and use the aforementioned toolbox.
This may be obvious, but make sure that you have enabled multithreaded computation in the preferences (File > Preferences > General > Multithreading). In some versions of MATLAB, it's not enabled by default.