I'm trying to implement code in Metal that performs a 1D convolution between two vectors with lengths. I've implemented the following which works correctly
kernel void convolve(const device float *dataVector [[ buffer(0) ]],
const device int& dataSize [[ buffer(1) ]],
const device float *filterVector [[ buffer(2) ]],
const device int& filterSize [[ buffer(3) ]],
device float *outVector [[ buffer(4) ]],
uint id [[ thread_position_in_grid ]]) {
int outputSize = dataSize - filterSize + 1;
for (int i=0;i<outputSize;i++) {
float sum = 0.0;
for (int j=0;j<filterSize;j++) {
sum += dataVector[i+j] * filterVector[j];
}
outVector[i] = sum;
}
}
My problem is it takes about 10 times longer to process (computation + data transfer to/from GPU) the same data using Metal than in Swift on a CPU. My question is how do I replace the inner loop with a single vector operation or is there another way to speed up the above code?
The key to taking advantage of the GPU's parallelism in this case is to let it manage the outer loop for you. Instead of invoking the kernel once for the entire data vector, we'll invoke it for each element in the data vector. The kernel function simplifies to this:
kernel void convolve(const device float *dataVector [[ buffer(0) ]],
const constant int &dataSize [[ buffer(1) ]],
const constant float *filterVector [[ buffer(2) ]],
const constant int &filterSize [[ buffer(3) ]],
device float *outVector [[ buffer(4) ]],
uint id [[ thread_position_in_grid ]])
{
float sum = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < filterSize; ++i) {
sum += dataVector[id + i] * filterVector[i];
}
outVector[id] = sum;
}
In order to dispatch this work, we select a threadgroup size based on the thread execution width recommended by the compute pipeline state. The one tricky thing here is making sure that there's enough padding in the input and output buffers so that we can slightly overrun the actual size of the data. This does cause us to waste a small amount of memory and computation, but saves us the complexity of doing a separate dispatch just to compute the convolution for the elements at the end of the buffer.
// We should ensure here that the data buffer and output buffer each have a size that is a multiple of
// the compute pipeline's threadExecutionWidth, by padding the amount we allocate for each of them.
// After execution, we ignore the extraneous elements in the output buffer beyond the first (dataCount - filterCount + 1).
let iterationCount = dataCount - filterCount + 1
let threadsPerThreadgroup = MTLSize(width: min(iterationCount, computePipeline.threadExecutionWidth), height: 1, depth: 1)
let threadgroups = (iterationCount + threadsPerThreadgroup.width - 1) / threadsPerThreadgroup.width
let threadgroupsPerGrid = MTLSize(width: threadgroups, height: 1, depth: 1)
let commandEncoder = commandBuffer.computeCommandEncoder()
commandEncoder.setComputePipelineState(computePipeline)
commandEncoder.setBuffer(dataBuffer, offset: 0, at: 0)
commandEncoder.setBytes(&dataCount, length: MemoryLayout<Int>.stride, at: 1)
commandEncoder.setBuffer(filterBuffer, offset: 0, at: 2)
commandEncoder.setBytes(&filterCount, length: MemoryLayout<Int>.stride, at: 3)
commandEncoder.setBuffer(outBuffer, offset: 0, at: 4)
commandEncoder.dispatchThreadgroups(threadgroupsPerGrid, threadsPerThreadgroup: threadsPerThreadgroup)
commandEncoder.endEncoding()
In my experiments, this parallelized approach runs 400-1000x faster than the serial version in the question. I'm curious to hear how it compares to your CPU implementation.
この記事はインターネットから収集されたものであり、転載の際にはソースを示してください。
侵害の場合は、連絡してください[email protected]
コメントを追加