Posted on February 18, 2019 by Troels Henriksen

This Monday I presented Futhark at PPoPP, a large academic conference on the principles and practice of parallel programming. As with the PLDI paper, this blog post is the main substance of the paper condensed into a more accessible form (but you can get the paper PDF if you want all the gory details).

Functional data-parallel programming guarantees the absence of race conditions - its semantics are entirely sequential - yet easily expresses large amounts of fine-grained parallelism, which can be exploited by a compiler. These properties have made data parallel programming a popular topic for researchers trying to address the challenges in programming parallel computers. In particular, data parallel functional programming has proven successful at exploiting massively parallel, but restricted, devices such as GPUs (see e.g. Accelerating Haskell array codes with multicore GPUs).

Flat data parallelism is relatively simple to map to efficient code. Consider what is perhaps the simplest data parallel operation: map . An expression map f xs applies the function f to every element of the array xs , producing a new array. This can be straightforwardly translated to parallel code by simply launching one thread per element in xs . On machines with heavyweight threads, where the cost of thread creation outweighs the cost of a single application of f , it is not hard to divide xs into multiple chunks, each of which is then assigned to a thread that performs multiple applications of f .

Nested data parallelism, which occurs when f itself contains parallel operations, is more challenging. The naive approach, of just letting each thread spawn more sub-threads to handle nested parallel invocations, is often slow in practice due to the overhead incurred by thread management. Further, on devices such as GPUs, nested parallelism is only partially supported at the hardware level, and care must be taken to obtain good performance. What is needed is an algorithm for turning nested data parallelism into flat data parallelism.

Fortunately, Guy Blelloch’s groundbreaking work on NESL in the 90s produced the flattening transformation (the curious can peruse Blelloch’s book), which was also been implemented on GPU hardware by Lars Bergstrom and John Reppy (2012 paper). This algorithm transforms all nested arrays into one-dimensional vectors with associated segment descriptors, and all nested data parallelism into flat-parallel segmented operations on such vectors. One important property of flattening is that it preserves the time complexity of the original program (both work and span), thus exploiting all available parallelism.

Unfortunately, traditional flattening has two main weaknesses. First, it preserves time asymptotics, but may cause a polynomial increase in space. Second, it unconditionally exploits all available parallelism, even that which may be unnecessary to fully saturate a specific parallel machine, and which may carry a high overhead to exploit. Let us illustrate with a few examples.

Consider a program multiplying two matrices xss and yss of shape n×m and m×n respectively:

let zs = map2 (*) xs ys map (\xs -> map (\ys ->zs = map2 (*) xs ys in reduce (+) 0 zs) reduce (+)zs) yss) xss

Full flattening will produce a sequence of flat-parallel segmented instructions, that conceptually perform the following operations:

let ysss = replicate n (transpose yss) ysss = replicate n (transpose yss) let xsss = map (replicate n) xss xsss = map (replicate n) xss let zsss = map2 (map2 (map2 (*))) xsss ysss zsss = map2 (map2 (map2 (*))) xsss ysss in map (map (reduce (+) 0 )) zsss map (map (reduce (+))) zsss

We are using multidimensional arrays here for simplicity, but they are semantically flat, as all rows have the same size. The first two lines produce two n×n×m arrays, which are then element-wise multiplied in line three, and finally line four performs a summation along the innermost (size m) dimension, producing an n² array. These large intermediate arrays make full flattening intractable for larger problems.

Perhaps the most obvious approach is to employ loop fusion on the generated flat code. However, this has proven difficult in practice. This is both because fusion can be relatively fragile and depend on a large number of enabling optimisations, and because segmented operations turn out to have a complicated fusion algebra, requiring sophisticated shape analysis (but maybe John Reppy will come up with a solution for his Nessie compiler). This problem is particularly acute when the segments are irregular.

Other attempts to address the issue involve modifying the flattening algorithm itself. Data-only flattening is an approach that flattens only the data, while leaving the structure of the code intact, which removes the need for large intermediate structures like the one we saw for matrix multiplication. However, data-only flattening is not a good fit for massively parallel devices that depend on fine-grained parallelism, such as GPUs, because the parallel structure of the program remains nested. Further, this approach does not address the other problem with flattening, over-parallelisation, as we shall discuss next.

The core problem with the matrix multiplication example is the decision to exploit all three levels of parallelism, especially since the innermost level - which contains a reduction - is relatively expensive to exploit. If the two outer map s together contain sufficient parallelism, which is usually (but not always!) the case, then it is better to transform the innermost map - reduce into a low-overhead sequential loop. Indeed, in practice, most high-performance matrix multiplication routines are written under this assumption, and exploit the regular structure of the innermost loop to perform loop tiling, in order to reduce the amount of memory traffic or improve cache behaviour.

We technique we previously developed for Futhark, which we now call moderate flattening, focused on “common case” parallelism. It is a more limited technique than full flattening, as it addresses only regular nested parallelism, where the size of all nested parallelism is invariant to the outer levels of parallelism. For example, the following function contains irregular parallelism as the size x (which controls the amount of parallelism in the inner reduce ) may not be the same for different iterations of the outer map :

let f (a: [n]i32) = f (a: [n]i32) = 0 ( 1 ...x)) a map (\x -> reduce (+)...x)) a

While the restriction to regular parallelism does preclude some programs from being easily expressible, notably most graph algorithms, it simplifies the treatment of those algorithms that require only regular nested parallelism, which turn out to be a surprisingly useful amount.

Moderate flattening uses heuristics to sequentialise nested parallelism that is judged unlikely to be necessary, and which is expensive to exploit. Instead, this excess parallelism is turned into efficient sequential code, often by exploiting the rich functional semantics to perform optimisations such as loop tiling or sequential fusion. In essence, a compiler employing moderate flattening is not a parallelising compiler, as the parallelism is already evident in the source program, but a sequentialising compiler.

The main limitation of moderate flattening is that it relies on a static set of assumptions that may be invalid for any given program or workload. For example, moderate flattening will always sequentialise nested map - reduce compositions, such as in our matrix multiplication example. Thus, when multiplying an n✕m and m✕n matrix, parallelism of degree n² will be exploited. This is efficient when n is large, but when n is small and m is large the machine will be under-utilised. In the worst case, when n=1, the program will be executed entirely sequentially! This is clearly not a productive use of the parallelism that the programmer provided in the original program.

We are unfortunately led to conclude that there is no one size fits all compilation scheme for nested data parallelism. Optimal code depends not just on the target architecture, but also on workload characteristics, which is information that is usually not available at compile-time. Therefore we developed an extension of moderate flattening, called incremental flattening, which generates multiple different code versions for each instance of nested parallelism, and at run-time picks the one that exploits the least amount of parallelism needed to saturate the actual machine, based on the shape of the actual input encountered. This, in theory, allows us to avoid paying an overhead on parallelism we do not need, while still scaling to workloads that demand that all parallelism is exploited.

Let us return to the matrix multiplication example again (this is the hello world of data parallel programming):

map (\xs -> let zs = map2 (*) xs ys map (\ys ->zs = map2 (*) xs ys in reduce (+) 0 zs) reduce (+)zs) yss) xss

Moderate flattening will compile this to a program where the two outer map s are executed in parallel, and the inner map - reduce is turned into a sequential loop. It will look a lot like this:

map (\xs -> map (\ys -> foldl (\acc (x,y) -> acc + x * y) 0 (zip xs ys)) (zip xs ys)) yss) xss

The compiler will then also perform access pattern optimisations (tiling) on the inner fold. This is also how most hand-written optimised matrix multiplications do it. If we assume that the sizes of the two outer map s are n and m, then incremental flattening will produce something like this:

if n * m > t0 then n * m > t0 -- Do what moderate flattening does. else -- Execute full segmented reduction.

Essentially, we are checking if the amount of parallelism in the map s exceeds some threshold t0 , and if so, we use the least parallel version. Only if necessary to saturate the hardware do we execute a fully parallel version.

(Actually that segmented reduction is on its own interesting enough that we also wrote a paper about that)

Thus, the essence of incremental flattening is this:

From a single source program, for each parallel construct generate multiple semantically equivalent parallelisations, and generate a single program that at run-time picks the least parallel that still saturates the hardware.

Let’s see how the performance of matrix multiplication behaves as we vary how much parallelism is present in the outer map s, and how much is in the inner map - reduce composition. If we are multiplying a matrix of size 2ⁿ✕2ᵐ with its transpose of size 2ᵐ✕2ⁿ, then we can keep the total work constant as we vary n by setting m=25-2n (the 25 is just some workload factor). In a perfect world, the time to multiple the two matrices would be exactly the same as n changes. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world.

The following graph shows how the run-time of four different implementations of matrix multiplication change as we vary n:

Moderate flattening. Incremental flattening, but using the default value for the threshold parameter t0. Incremental flattening, but after auto-tuning t0 to obtain an optimal/better value (basically, searching for it). NVIDIAs highly optimised cuBLAS library.

As a larger n corresponds to more parallelism in the outer map s, we see that cuBLAS performs really well above n=3. This is not surprising: NVIDIA has many sufficiently smart engineers working on making its matrix multiplications run fast. For small n, cuBLAS performance drops off a cliff (or ascends a mountain, depending on your perspective), because there is just not enough outer parallelism left - and each of the few active GPU threads have to do a lot of work. The curve is the same for moderate flattening, although shifted a bit to the right, probably because cuBLAS’s advanced low-level optimisations can better offset the lack of parallelism.

Incremental flattening performs reasonably for all dataset. We can clearly see the point where it switches from the fully-parallel to the moderately-flattened version (n=8 in the untuned case, and n=5 in the tuned case).

While this is a very simple example, and one can reasonably argue that incremental flattening does not actually perform all that well for low n compared to high n, we at least stand a reasonable chance of simply improving the implementation segmented reduction in the Futhark compiler. In contrast, nobody hand-writing optimised GPU code is likely to want to write multiple semantically equivalent implementations of their program, just to optimally handle all distributions of parallelism. And even if you can find someone who does want to do that, they will rarely have the time.

The incremental flattening can also be used for more subtle purposes than merely controlling how much parallelism to exploit. GPUs are not completely bulk synchronous machines, but have a bit of topology that can be profitably exploited. Specifically, GPU threads are not completely independent, nor are they completely connected. Rather, they are divided into work-groups (or thread blocks in NVIDIA terms), within which threads can communicate with each other, primarily through fast (and very small) local memory (NVIDIA calls this shared memory). Thus, instead of merely deciding between whether inner parallelism should be sequentialised or fully exploited, we can also try to execute it at the work-group level. This is a subtle thing, so let me illustrate with an excerpt from the LocVolCalib benchmark, taken from the FinPar benchmark suite:

map (\xss -> map (\xs -> let bs = scan f 0 xs bs = scan fxs let cs = scan g 0 bs cs = scan gbs in scan h 0 cs) scan hcs) xss) xsss

This is a map nest containing three parallel scan s (also called a prefix sum, although LocVolCalib uses a fancier operator than mere addition). Using the simple form of incremental flattening discussed above, the compiler would create two versions: one where we launch a thread for each iteration of the outer map s, each of which then performs the three scan s sequentially, and one where we completely flatten the expression to three fully parallelised segmented scans, as thus:

let bsss = bsss = 0 xs) xss) xsss map (\xss -> map (\xs -> scan fxs) xss) xsss let csss = csss = 0 bs ) bss) bsss map (\bss -> map (\bs -> scan gbs ) bss) bsss in 0 cs) css) csss map (\css -> map (\cs -> scan hcs) css) csss

The problem with the latter is that the intermediate arrays bsss and csss have to be manifested in GPU global memory, which is relatively slow (although very fast by CPU memory standards). In this case, as long as the inner scan s operate on arrays that are sufficiently small (fit in a work-group; usually at most 256 to 1024 elements), we might in principle not need any synchronisation outside the work-group at all, apart from when we copy the final result back to global memory.

So we have a third option for incremental flattening: launch one work-group of threads for each of the map iterations and execute the innermost scan s at the work-group level. This is only valid when the innermost parallelism small enough to fit (GPU work-groups are typically limited to at most 1024 threads), which we cannot generally know at compile-time. Thus, again, this version is protected by a run-time check. We call this intra-group parallelism.

The performance impact of this can be quite significant. The following graph shows speedup relative to moderate flattening on the LocVolCalib benchmark (higher is better), on two different GPUs, and with three Futhark implementations and two hand-written OpenCL implementations from FinPar. Each implementation is then also executed on three data sets. Here, “tuning” refers simply to automatically calibrating the various threshold parameters to fit the hardware. The two FinPar versions correspond to sequentialising the scan s (“outer parallelism”) and executing them at the work-group level (“all parallelism”), the way Futhark can also do it.

For correctness/safety reasons, untuned incremental flattening will currently never pick the intra-group parallel version, so the performance improvement we sometimes see when tuning is precisely this kicking in. Note that intra-group parallelism is beneficial on the large dataset on the Vega 64 GPU, but not on the K40. This is despite the large dataset being engineered to contain sufficient parallelism in the outer map s. The reason we see this effect on the Vega 64 is likely because it is even more memory-starved relative to its computational power than the K40, and so the impact of minimising global memory accesses is more dramatic.

Note that, as with the matrix multiplication example, Futhark cannot (always) outperform expertly hand-written GPU code. However, the effort to implement the two FinPar versions of LocVolCalib exceeds by orders of magnitude the effort required to implement LocVolCalib in Futhark. Further, the two FinPar versions are completely distinct programs, while the incrementally flattened Futhark version is a single compiled program that can handle multiple workloads efficiently.

The paper contains a performance validation of incremental flattening on eight further benchmarks, mostly from the standard Rodinia suite, each with two datasets that differ in which levels of parallelism are the most intensive. For brevity I will not discuss these in detail, but the speedup graphs is reproduced here (again, higher is better):

One clear thing to take away is that in practice, Futhark seems to perform quite well against the GPU code that programmers tend to actually write (and publish!). Futhark does significantly lose on NW, where the Rodinia implementation is particularly cleverly written, but on average most GPU programs seem to contain inefficiencies that are left in because they are tedious to remove, or result in unmaintainable code. In particular, no Rodinia benchmarks do any kind of multi-versioning, but simply assume that all the parallelism is concentrated at the outermost level.

There are two main points to take away:

When dealing with nested data parallelism, there is no one size fits all. With incremental flattening, Futhark is able to generate all the sizes, and at run-time pick the one that fits the workload encountered.

Personally, I’m particularly pleased that we managed to implement incremental flattening without modifying the source language at all. It gives me further confidence that a simple set of data-parallel combinators, that closely resemble existing widely used higher-order functions, are enough to support a great many interesting programs.