胡文美教授cuda中文讲座_lecture8_case_study_2008.pptVIP

* How can the layout of scan data in the constant memory be causing the poor performance we just observed? First, recall that the kx, ky, kz, and phi components of the same scan point have both temporal and spatial locality. The temporal locality is across threads (when one thread loads a scan point, there’s a high probability that another thread will load the same scan point soon). The spatial locality is both within and across threads (when one thread loads a scan point, there’s a high probability that the same thread and other threads will load nearby scan points soon). In the old data layout, the components of the same scan point are not in contiguous memory. So prefetching isn’t as effective as it might be, and in-phase threads may cause a lot of unnecessary cache conflicts, depending on the line size and associativity of the constant caches. In the new data layout, those problems don’t exist. * With the new layout of data in the constant cache, performance no longer changes as the number of scan points per grid changes. Overall performance has increased quite a bit: 20-25%. * Performance varies by as much as 75% from one loop unrolling factor to another. At the sweet spot, the loop is unrolled 4 times. * The Intel compilers are very helpful for quickly experimenting with vectorization and classical optimizations. You can save a lot of time that would otherwise be spent coding those optimizations by hand. * So, having taken apart the implementation of the LS reconstruction and put it back together again, how did we do? We find that the reconstruction based on gridding and the FFT runs in roughly 23 seconds, while the fastest reconstruction based on least-squares runs in 3 minutes, 11 seconds. So the conventional reconstruction is roughly an order of magnitude faster than least-squares. But the LS reconstruction finishes in just over 3 minutes, which is adequate for many emerging applications. * Also, relative to the CPU, the GPU achieves speedup of 357X fo