<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hello Igor,  in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098453#M25112</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Igor,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&lt;BR /&gt;
	That's interesting, the 2 stage parallel sort was what I decided. I'm using&amp;nbsp;ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s in combination with OpenMP. Then merging the data sets. (I realize this conversation has drifted way off the titles topic, but was interesting)&lt;BR /&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;My merge/reduce is parallel but not optimized (it manipulates the key/value pairs too not just index), but seems like really good gains for a 4 core CPU with 8 threads. From what I was told about hyperthreading &amp;nbsp;at my last HPC internship, it is like thread switching on cores for higher utilization of the CPU. So to have total gains greater than the core count seems really good.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;PRE class="brush:bash;"&gt;ippGetNumThreads 1
Set Num THreads warning 0, ippStsNoErr: No errors.
ippGetNumThreads 8

ItemCount: 10000000
ItemCount Per Thread 1250000
BufferSize: 5020576
Thread # 5 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 4 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 6 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 7 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 3 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 1 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 2 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 8 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Time for partial sorts with OpenMP(8):  200.29 ms

Reduce (4):  138.03 ms

Full Sort:  338.32 ms



ItemCount: 10000000
BufferSize: 40020576
1. Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Time for single sort of all elements:  1726.63 ms

Performance Gains with a Quad Core CPU:  5.10x
&lt;/PRE&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Greg_G_</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-06-17T08:55:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Get/Set Threads isn't working, using Intel IPP RadixIndex</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098447#M25106</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I can set the number of OpenMP threads and it works for "omp parallel for"&lt;BR /&gt;
	ippGetNumThreads always returns 1 though.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	ippSetNumThreads(8) reports "No operation has been exacuted"&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Not sure how to successfully&amp;nbsp;set the threads.&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;Or if setting the thread count higher will make&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_8u run with multiple threads.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;PRE class="brush:cpp;"&gt;        omp_set_dynamic(0);     
	omp_set_num_threads(8); 
	
	int threads = 0;
	ippGetNumThreads(&amp;amp;threads);
	wprintf(L"ippGetNumThreads %d\n", threads);
	IppStatus errorTh = ippSetNumThreads(8);
	printf("-- warning %d, %s\n", errorTh, ippGetStatusString( errorTh ));
	ippGetNumThreads(&amp;amp;threads);
	wprintf(L"ippGetNumThreads %d\n", threads);&lt;/PRE&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;Thanks,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;Greg&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098447#M25106</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg_G_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-16T12:19:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Greg,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098448#M25107</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Greg,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;do you use multithreaded IPP libraries? for non-threaded libs behavior of Get/SetNumthreads is correct.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Regards, Igor&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:57:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098448#M25107</guid>
      <dc:creator>Igor_A_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-16T15:57:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hello thanks for your reply</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098449#M25108</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello thanks for your reply Igor.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&lt;BR /&gt;
	Yes, I do have them. I wasn't sure which to select when setting up the project though. Initially I chose Multi-threaded DLL. I just tried switching to Multi-threaded static library and that allowed me to change the thread count.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;However&amp;nbsp;ippsSortRadixIndexAscend still only runs on one thread.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:40:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098449#M25108</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg_G_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-17T00:40:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi, </title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098450#M25109</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&lt;BR /&gt;
	ippsSortRadixIndexAscend is not internal threaded.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A related ippsSortRadixAscend function is threaded.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; You can find the threaded function list at:&amp;nbsp; documentation\en\ipp\common\ThreadedFunctionsList.txt&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;
	Chao&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 02:17:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098450#M25109</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chao_Y_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-17T02:17:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thanks Chao, </title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098451#M25110</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks Chao,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I tested&amp;nbsp;ippsSortRadixAscend_32s_I there was no performance change with 1 thread vs 4 or 8 threads. Sorting using 10 million elements.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Any suggestions for a parallel (key,value) sort library? &amp;nbsp;I'm looking for a sort on a single CPU, final version will use a 10-14 core Xeon, with the goal to sort 10 million 32bit (key, value) pairs in about 30ms. While that may not be possible, in a single sort I have also thought about multi step sorts. For example a course grained sort using 16 or 8bit keys then sent to a co-processor for an exact sort and further parallel computing.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Decided to use OpenMP and Intel's sorts for a 2 stage sort, as a temporary solution.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098451#M25110</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg_G_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-17T06:02:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Greg,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098452#M25111</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Greg,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;parallel merge sort will be introduced (2 stage parallel sort - (1) radix, (2) merge) in the IP version that is next after 2017. SortRadix had threaded implementation in some older IPP version, but then was commented because of non-efficient implementation (2 threads were supported only).&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;regards, Igor&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:33:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098452#M25111</guid>
      <dc:creator>Igor_A_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-17T08:33:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hello Igor, </title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098453#M25112</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Igor,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;
	&lt;BR /&gt;
	That's interesting, the 2 stage parallel sort was what I decided. I'm using&amp;nbsp;ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s in combination with OpenMP. Then merging the data sets. (I realize this conversation has drifted way off the titles topic, but was interesting)&lt;BR /&gt;
	&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;My merge/reduce is parallel but not optimized (it manipulates the key/value pairs too not just index), but seems like really good gains for a 4 core CPU with 8 threads. From what I was told about hyperthreading &amp;nbsp;at my last HPC internship, it is like thread switching on cores for higher utilization of the CPU. So to have total gains greater than the core count seems really good.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;PRE class="brush:bash;"&gt;ippGetNumThreads 1
Set Num THreads warning 0, ippStsNoErr: No errors.
ippGetNumThreads 8

ItemCount: 10000000
ItemCount Per Thread 1250000
BufferSize: 5020576
Thread # 5 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 4 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 6 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 7 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 3 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 1 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 2 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Thread # 8 - Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Time for partial sorts with OpenMP(8):  200.29 ms

Reduce (4):  138.03 ms

Full Sort:  338.32 ms



ItemCount: 10000000
BufferSize: 40020576
1. Sorting ippsSortRadixIndexAscend_32s...
Time for single sort of all elements:  1726.63 ms

Performance Gains with a Quad Core CPU:  5.10x
&lt;/PRE&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Get-Set-Threads-isn-t-working-using-Intel-IPP-RadixIndex/m-p/1098453#M25112</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg_G_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-06-17T08:55:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

