- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

After several false starts, I have a working OpenCL environment with immense help from Nallatech. Since the type of problems I want to solve is similar to Intel's Monte Carlo BS pricing example, I wanted to try this example out on a 395AB Nallatech board which has a Stratix V GXAB processor, 32GB of memory. When compiling the example, it is failing that it can't fit. Anyone have any idea? Its a simple example, so I am surprised that it failed on this board?

https://www.altera.com/support/support-resources/design-examples/design-software/opencl/black-schole... Thanks, QGLink Copied

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Please attach the *kernel_name*.log and quartus_sh_compile.log files from the compilation folder.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

--- Quote Start --- Please attach the *kernel_name*.log and quartus_sh_compile.log files from the compilation folder. --- Quote End --- It seems I ran out of DSPs :(. The DSPs got over utilized at 162%. Apparently, the example was specifically targeted for the D8 chip as opposed to the AB chip. Can I remove the unrolling of the loops to minimize the DSP utilization? Here is a snippet of the code: __kernel __attribute__((reqd_work_group_size(NUM_THREADS,1,1))) void black_scholes( int m, int n, float drift, float vol, float S_0, float K) { // running statistics -- use double precision for the accumulator double sum = 0.0; // loop over all simulations for(int path=0;path<m;path++) { float S = S_0; float arithmetic_average = 0.0f; // We're not including the initial price in the average for (int t_i=0; t_i<n/VECTOR; t_i++) { float U[VECTOR], Z[VECTOR]; vec_float_ty U0 = read_channel_intel(RANDOM_STREAM_0); vec_float_ty U1 = read_channel_intel(RANDOM_STREAM_1); vec_float_ty U2 = read_channel_intel(RANDOM_STREAM_2); vec_float_ty U3 = read_channel_intel(RANDOM_STREAM_3);

**#pragma unroll vector_div4**for (int i=0; i<VECTOR_DIV4; i++) { U

*=u0*; U[i+1*VECTOR_DIV4]=U1

*;*

*u[i+2*vector_div4]=u2*; U[i+3*VECTOR_DIV4]=U3

*;*

*}*

**#pragma unroll vector_div2***for (int i=0; i<vector_div2; i++) {*

*float2 z = box_muller(u[2*i], u[2*i+1]);*

*z[2*i] = z.x;*

*z[2*i+1] = z.y;*

*}*

**#pragma unroll vector***for (int i=0; i<vector; i++) {*

*// convert uniform distribution to normal*

*float gauss_rnd = z*; // Simulate the path movement using geometric brownian motion S *= drift * exp(vol * gauss_rnd); arithmetic_average += S; } } It took close to 24-hours to compile the example on a 16-core 3.3Ghz, 128Gig machine! :o Thanks, QG

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Rather than removing the unrolls, it is probably best just to decrease the unroll factors up to a point where the predicted DSP utilization by the compiler goes below 100%. When you overutilize the DSPs, the mapper will try to map the extra functions to logic, which will significantly increase the logic usage and complicate placement and routing and result in much longer placement and routing time.

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page