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

Hello,

I am currently learning about how to use random functions, and am using the mkl version VSL_RNG.

I have made this simple code which compares the efficiency with generating all random numbers at once or doing so on the fly. The code runs in parallel where I am using VSL_BRNG_WH+rank to generate a different generator for each MPI process.

For generating nmax=1e8 numbers I get the following:

time = 0.35 seconds for generating all numbers at once (n=1 setting in the code)

time = 16 seconds for generating on the fly (n=2 setting in the code)

Is this an expected behaviour. Is it generally expected that the speed is much faster for doing all generating numbers at once before entering a loop?

include 'mkl_vsl.f90' program rnd_test use MKL_VSL use MKL_VSL_TYPE use mpi implicit none real(kind=8) t1,t2 ! buffer for random numbers real(kind=8) s ! average real(kind=8) a, sigma ! parameters of normal distribution real(kind=8), allocatable :: r(:) ! buffer for random numbers TYPE (VSL_STREAM_STATE)::stream integer errcode integer i,j, n11, nloop, nn integer brng,method,seed,n, ierr, size, rank integer(kind=8) :: nskip, nmax call mpi_init(ierr) call MPI_COMM_SIZE(MPI_COMM_WORLD, size, ierr) call MPI_COMM_RANK(MPI_COMM_WORLD, rank, ierr) n = 1 s = 0.0 a = 5.0 sigma = 2.0 nmax = 1e8 !----------------------------------------------------------------------- nn = 2 ! (1): all at once. >1: on the fly !---------------------------------------------------------------------- nloop = 0 if(nn>1)then nloop=nmax nn = 1 else nloop=1 nn = nmax endif allocate(r(nn)) method=VSL_RNG_METHOD_GAUSSIAN_ICDF seed=777 brng = VSL_BRNG_WH+rank ! ***** Initializing ***** errcode=vslnewstream( stream, brng, seed ) t1 = 0. t2 = 0. t1 = mpi_wtime() ! ***** Generating ***** do i = 1, nloop errcode=vdrnggaussian( method, stream, nn, r, a, sigma ) ! s = s + sum(r) end do t2= mpi_wtime() ! s = s / 10000.0 print*, "time: ", t2-t1 call mpi_barrier(MPI_COMM_WORLD,ierr) ! ***** Deinitialize ***** errcode=vsldeletestream( stream ) end program

best

Ali

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

Hi Ali,

Thank you for providing additional explanations of the parameters of your application. Answering your questions:

- What if my application requires different lower and upper bounds for the random function in the same loop. For example, for the Gaussian distribution I literally have a routine that runs from 1 to n where my a and sigma varies. I need to calculate those for each loop iteration.

Usage of Intel MKL RNGs is not optimal for vector length 1 as it results into extra overhead and does not use vectorization opportunities of hardware. To address your use case, I suggest generating blocks of random variates r from the Gaussian distribution with zero expectation and unit standard deviation and then scale them r* * sigma + a*

- Can you explain what you meant here: Additionally, depending on the application we recommend generating a sequence of random numbers of size nmax/n in blocks of the fixed size (for example, 512 or so, actual block size is defined using a set of quick performance experiments on your CPU)

Let’s assume that each thread (or MPI process) is expected to generate visible number of random variates defined by the external parameters such as number of threads (e.g., 100) and the total amount of required of random numbers (100 000 000). One option is to uniformly split generation of the portions of the random numbers between those threads, and each thread will generate 1 000 000 variates by calling Intel MKL RNG. This however may be suboptimal when you expect postprocessing of the numbers: the numbers would be washed out from say L1 cache after the generation, and stage of the postprocessing would wait when the numbers are back. Another option is split generation of 1 000 000 variates into blocks of quite small size of say 1000 and immediately process them. You can do it in the loop of 1000 iterations. In this case, the numbers are in L1 cache, and respective cache misses on the stage of the postprocessing are minimized. The actual block size will depend on the characteristics of your CPU and problem settings

- Please can you also let me know if it completely valid to use same stream for different random functions. For example, I am currently using both a uniform and gaussian distribution for the same application using the same stream, generator etc

Yes, it’s completely valid use scenario as the internal state of underlying basic random number generator which serves as the source of uniform random numbers for the distribution generators is updated after each call. We however do not recommend using the same stream to produce random numbers in different threads. In this scenario, please use respective interfaces for initialization of the generators for the use in the parallel mode.

Please, let me know, if it answers your questions and if you need more help on the use of Intel MKL RNGs from our side.

Best regards,

Alina

Link Copied

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

Hi Ali,

Per my analysis of your testcase, n is expected to be number of threads and nn – number of random variates to be generated by each thread.

The following lines use nn as the number of threads, and declare n but do not use it:

n = 2 nn = 2 ! (1): all at once. >1: on the fly

As result of the following lines

if(nn>1)then nloop=nmax nn = 1

number of iterations nloop will be nmax, and only one random number will be generated in the thread:

! ***** Generating ***** do i = 1, nloop errcode=vdrnggaussian( method, stream, nn, r, a, sigma ) ! s = s + sum(r) end do

We do not recommend using Intel MKL RNGs for vector lengths nn less than few hundred, thus I suggest to modify the code as shown below:

if(n>1)then nloop=n nn = nmax/n

In this case each of n threads would generate nmax/n random numbers, what is expected to improve the performance of your application.

Additionally, depending on the application we recommend generating a sequence of random numbers of size nmax/n in blocks of the fixed size (for example, 512 or so, actual block size is defined using a set of quick performance experiments on your CPU).

In this case if the generation of the random numbers is immediately followed by their postprocessing, you would see extra performance benefit due to improved data locality

Please, let me know, if my interpretation of your test case is correct and share respective results of your performance experiments with us

Best regards,

Alina

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

Hello Alina,

Thanks for the reply.

Let me just go through your assumptions on my code.

n

Is **not** the number of threads. I am using mpi to run in parallel only, hence, the only to discern between one thread/core/mpi_rank and another is

rank

This is why I am doing

brng = VSL_BRNG_WH+rank

The idea is that I would like to use say,

nmax= 1e8

random numbers. The question is whether I generate those numbers in the beginning or on the fly of simulation. So if say I have the following

do i = 1,1e8 ! ... Some operations v(i) = (....) + r(i) enddo

Now the question is whether the random numbers contained in `r` should be generated apriori to the loop, or in buckets in the loop or for each `i` I generate one random number. For example

do i = 1,1e8 ! ... Some operations errcode=vdrnggaussian( method, stream, 1, r(1), a, sigma ) v(i) = (....) + r(1) ! - enddo

My code is just comparing the difference between generating 1e8 random numbers at once, OR generating **one** random number 1e8 times.

Hence I am writing this comment

!----------------------------------------------------------------------- nn = 2 ! (1): all at once. >1: on the fly !----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you set nn=1, all random numbers will be generated at once and therefore I set the nloop to 1. Otherwise, if nn > 1, we do the opposite.

To your answer:

I see that the instance where we generate one random at a time is **not **recommended. While I should rather generate them all.

To summarise: I have two questions.

1) What if my application requires different lower and upper bounds for the random function in the same loop. For example, for the gaussian distribution I literally have a routine that runs from 1 to n where my a and sigma varies. I need to calculate those for each loop iteration.

2)

Can you explain what you meant here:

Additionally, depending on the application we recommend generating a sequence of random numbers of size nmax/n in blocks of the fixed size (for example, 512 or so, actual block size is defined using a set of quick performance experiments on your CPU).

Thanks again

best

Ali

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

Alina, Please can you also let me know if it completely valid to use same stream for different random functions. For example, I am currently using both a uniform and gaussian distribution for the same application using the same stream, generator etc.

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

Hi Ali,

Thank you for providing additional explanations of the parameters of your application. Answering your questions:

- What if my application requires different lower and upper bounds for the random function in the same loop. For example, for the Gaussian distribution I literally have a routine that runs from 1 to n where my a and sigma varies. I need to calculate those for each loop iteration.

Usage of Intel MKL RNGs is not optimal for vector length 1 as it results into extra overhead and does not use vectorization opportunities of hardware. To address your use case, I suggest generating blocks of random variates r from the Gaussian distribution with zero expectation and unit standard deviation and then scale them r* * sigma + a*

- Can you explain what you meant here: Additionally, depending on the application we recommend generating a sequence of random numbers of size nmax/n in blocks of the fixed size (for example, 512 or so, actual block size is defined using a set of quick performance experiments on your CPU)

Let’s assume that each thread (or MPI process) is expected to generate visible number of random variates defined by the external parameters such as number of threads (e.g., 100) and the total amount of required of random numbers (100 000 000). One option is to uniformly split generation of the portions of the random numbers between those threads, and each thread will generate 1 000 000 variates by calling Intel MKL RNG. This however may be suboptimal when you expect postprocessing of the numbers: the numbers would be washed out from say L1 cache after the generation, and stage of the postprocessing would wait when the numbers are back. Another option is split generation of 1 000 000 variates into blocks of quite small size of say 1000 and immediately process them. You can do it in the loop of 1000 iterations. In this case, the numbers are in L1 cache, and respective cache misses on the stage of the postprocessing are minimized. The actual block size will depend on the characteristics of your CPU and problem settings

- Please can you also let me know if it completely valid to use same stream for different random functions. For example, I am currently using both a uniform and gaussian distribution for the same application using the same stream, generator etc

Yes, it’s completely valid use scenario as the internal state of underlying basic random number generator which serves as the source of uniform random numbers for the distribution generators is updated after each call. We however do not recommend using the same stream to produce random numbers in different threads. In this scenario, please use respective interfaces for initialization of the generators for the use in the parallel mode.

Please, let me know, if it answers your questions and if you need more help on the use of Intel MKL RNGs from our side.

Best regards,

Alina

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

Hello Alina,

Your answers are right to the point! Very useful

Thanks very much.

best regards

Ali

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