What might cause "Undefined Behaviour" in this parallel GPU code?

StackOverflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21705865

  •  10-10-2022
  •  | 
  •  

문제

Lets assume core1 and core2 try writing their variables a and b to same memory location.

How can UB be explained here?

  • We dont know if a or b is written to that memory location(as a last action).
  • We dont even know what is written there (a garbage)
  • Even the target memory address can be miscalculated(segfault?).
  • Some logical gates make wrong currents and CPU disables itself
  • CPU's frequency information becomes corrupt and goes high overclock(and break itself)

Can I assume only the first option is valid for all vendors of CPU( and GPU)?

I just converted below code into a parallel GPU code and it seems to be working fine.

Generic code:

for (j=0; j<YRES/CELL; j++) // this is parallelized
        for (i=0; i<XRES/CELL; i++) // this is parallelized
        {
            r = fire_r[j][i];
            g = fire_g[j][i];
            b = fire_b[j][i];
            if (r || g || b)
                for (y=-CELL; y<2*CELL; y++)
                    for (x=-CELL; x<2*CELL; x++)
                        addpixel(i*CELL+x, j*CELL+y, r, g, b, fire_alpha[y+CELL][x+CELL]);
   //addpixel accesses neighbour cells' informations and writes on them
   //and makes UB
            r *= 8;
            g *= 8;
            b *= 8;
            for (y=-1; y<2; y++)
                for (x=-1; x<2; x++)
                    if ((x || y) && i+x>=0 && j+y>=0 && i+x<XRES/CELL && j+y<YRES/CELL)
                    {
                        r += fire_r[j+y][i+x];
                        g += fire_g[j+y][i+x];
                        b += fire_b[j+y][i+x];
                    }
            r /= 16;
            g /= 16;
            b /= 16;
            fire_r[j][i] = r>4 ? r-4 : 0; // UB
            fire_g[j][i] = g>4 ? g-4 : 0; // UB
            fire_b[j][i] = b>4 ? b-4 : 0;
        }

Opencl:

"   int i=get_global_id(0); int j=get_global_id(1);"
"   int VIDXRES="+std::to_string(kkVIDXRES)+";"
                        "   int VIDYRES="+std::to_string(kkVIDYRES)+";"
                        "   int XRES="+std::to_string(kkXRES)+";"
                        "   int CELL="+std::to_string(kkCELL)+";"
                        "   int YRES="+std::to_string(kkYRES)+";"

                        "   int x=0,y=0,r=0,g=0,b=0,nx=0,ny=0;"

                        "       r = fire_r[j*(XRES/CELL)+i];"
                        "       g = fire_g[j*(XRES/CELL)+i];"
                        "       b = fire_b[j*(XRES/CELL)+i];"

                        "       int counterx=0;"
                        "       if (r || g || b)"
                        "       for (y=-CELL; y<2*CELL; y++){"
                        "       for (x=-CELL; x<2*CELL; x++){"
                        "       addpixel(i*CELL+x, j*CELL+y, r, g, b, fire_alpha[(y+CELL)*(3*CELL)+(x+CELL)],vid,vido);"
                        "       }}"

                        "       r *= 8;"
                        "       g *= 8;"
                        "       b *= 8;"
                        "       for (y=-1; y<2; y++){"
                        "       for (x=-1; x<2; x++){"
                        "       if ((x || y) && i+x>=0 && j+y>=0 && i+x<XRES/CELL && j+y<YRES/CELL)"
                        "       {"
                        "           r += fire_r[(j+y)*(XRES/CELL)+(i+x)];"
                        "           g += fire_g[(j+y)*(XRES/CELL)+(i+x)];"
                        "           b += fire_b[(j+y)*(XRES/CELL)+(i+x)];"
                        "       }}}"
                        "       r /= 16;"
                        "       g /= 16;"
                        "       b /= 16;"
                        "       fire_r[j*(XRES/CELL)+i] = (r>4 ? r-4 : 0);"
                        "       fire_g[j*(XRES/CELL)+i] = (g>4 ? g-4 : 0);"
                        "       fire_b[j*(XRES/CELL)+i] = (b>4 ? b-4 : 0);"

Here is picture of some rare artifacts of a 2D NDrangeKernel 's local boundary UB. Can these kill my GPU?

enter image description here

도움이 되었습니까?

해결책

On xf86 and xf86_64 architectures it means We dont know if a or b is written to that memory location(as a last action), because load/store operations of 32 (for both) or 64 bit (xf86_64 only) memory aligned datatypes are atomic.

On other architectures usually We dont even know what is written there (a garbage) is a valid answer - for sure on RISC architectures, I currently don't know on GPU's.

Note that The fact the code works doesn't imply that it is correct and in the 99% of the times it's the source of sentences like "there's a compiler bug, the code was working until the previous version" or "the code works on the development machine. The server selected for production is broken" :)

EDIT:

On NVidia GPUs we have weakly-ordered memory model. In the description on the Cuda C Programming guide it's not explicitly stated that store operations are atomic. The write operations come from the same thread, so it does not mean that load/store operations are atomic.

다른 팁

For the code above, IMHO the first option is the only possible one. Basically, if you assume that you have enough threads/processors to execute all the loops in parallel, the inner nested loops (the x and y ones) will have undetermined values.

For example, if we consider only the

r += fire_r[j+y][i+x];

section, the value at fire_r[j+y][i+x] can be the original one just as well as the result of another instance of the same loop being finished in another thread.

라이센스 : CC-BY-SA ~와 함께 속성
제휴하지 않습니다 StackOverflow
scroll top