## Getting started¶

In this session, we will use examples in either C, C++ or Fortran90. Choose your preferred language of the three and download the files to be used in this session by either clicking one of the following three links: C version, C++ version, F90 version, or by copying the relevant files on ManeFrame with one of the following 3 commands:

$cp ~dreynolds/ManeFrame_tutorial/session4_c.tgz .$ cp ~dreynolds/ManeFrame_tutorial/session4_cxx.tgz .
$cp ~dreynolds/ManeFrame_tutorial/session4_f90.tgz .  Unpack your tarball and enter the resulting directory. ## Profiling and performance analysis¶ There are two primary mechanisms for profiling code: determining which routines take the most time, and determining which specific lines of code would be best to optimize. Thankfully, the GNU compiler collection includes utilities for both of these tasks, as will be illustrated below. Utilities with similar functionality are included with some other compilers, and I recommend that you look up the corresponding information for your compiler of choice. Note In fact, OS X provides a free suite of programs, Xcode, that has incredibly useful profiling and performance monitoring tools. For users with OS X Lion or newer, this tool is called Instruments; for users with older versions of OS X it is called Shark. ### Generating a profile¶ In the GNU compilers (and many others), you can enable profiling information through adding in the -p compiler flag. Add this compiler flag to the commands in the Makefile for the target driver1.exe [Hint: either put it with the flags in the OPT variable, or in the compile line before the -o flag]. Profiling information is generated by running the executable once to completion. Run the driver as usual: $ ./driver1.exe


Write down the total runtime required for the program (you will use this information later on).

When the program has finished, you should see a new file in the directory called gmon.out. This contains the relevant profiling data, and was written during the execution of the code.

Examine the profiling information by using the program gprof. You use this by calling gprof, followed by the executable name. It will automatically look in the gmon.out file in that directory for the profiling data that relates to the executable. Run the command

$gprof driver1.exe  When you run gprof, it outputs all of the profiling information to the screen. To enable easier examination of these results, you should instead send this data to a file. You can redirect this information to the file profiling_data.txt with the command $ gprof driver1.exe > profiling_data.txt


You will then have the readable file profiling_data.txt with the relevant profiling information.

### Identifying bottlenecks¶

Read through the first table of profiling information in this file. The first column of this table shows the percentage of time spent in each function called by the driver. Identify which one takes the vast majority of the time. This bottleneck should be the first routine that you investigate for optimization.

Look through the routine identified from the previous step – the function may be contained in a file with a different name, so you can use grep to find which file contains the routine:

$grep -i <routine_name> *  where <routine_name> is the function that you identified from the previous step. Once you have determined the file that contains the culprit function, you can use the second utility routine gcov to determine which lines in the file are executed the most. To use gcov, you must modify the compile line once more, to use the compilation flags -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage. Add these compiler flags to the commands in the Makefile for the target driver1.exe, recompile, and re-run the executable, $ ./driver1.exe


You should now see additional files in the directory, including driver1.gcda, driver1.gcno, vectors.gcda and vectors.gcno. If you do not see these files, revisit the above instructions to ensure that you haven’t missed any steps.

You should now run gcov on the input file that held the function you identified from the steps above. For example, if the source code file was file.cpp, you would run

$gcov file.cpp  This will output some information to the screen, including the name of a .gcov file that it creates with information on the program. Open this new file using gedit, and you will see lines like the following:  -: 51: // fill in vectors x and y 101: 52: for (i=0; i<l; i++) 10100: 53: for (j=0; j<m; j++) 1010000: 54: for (k=0; k<n; k++) 1000000: 55: x[i][j][k] = random() / (pow(2.0,31.0) - 1.0);  The first column of numbers on the left signify the number of times each line of code was executed within the program. The second column of numbers correspond to the line number within the source code file. The remainder of each line shows the source code itself. From the above snippet, we see that lines 54 and 55 were executed 1.01 and 1 million times, respectively, indicating that these would be prime locations for code optimization. Find the corresponding lines of code in the function that you identified from the preceding step. It is here where you should focus your optimization efforts. ### Optimizing code¶ Save a copy of the source code file you plan to modify using the cp command, e.g. $ cp file.cpp file_old.cpp


where file is the file that you have identified as containing the bottleneck routine (use the appropriate extension for your coding language). We will use this original file again later in the session.

Now that you know which lines are executed, and how often, you should remove the gcov compiler options, but keep the -p in your Makefile.

Determine what, if anything, can be optimized in this routine. The topic of code optimization is bigger than we can cover in a single workshop session, but here are some standard techniques.

Note

Code optimization techniques

1. Is there a simpler way that the arithmetic could be accomplished? Sometimes the most natural way of writing down a problem does not result in the least amount of effort. For example, we may implement a line of code to evaluate the polynomial $$p(x) = 2x^4-3x^3+5x^2-8x+7$$ using either

p = 2.0*x*x*x*x - 3.0*x*x*x + 5.0*x*x - 8*x + 7.0;


or

p = (((2.0*x - 3.0)*x + 5.0)*x - 8.0)*x + 7.0;


The first line requires 10 multiplication and 4 addition/subtraction operations, while the second requires only 4 multiplications and 4 additions/subtractions.

2. Is the code accessing memory in an optimal manner? Computers store and access memory from RAM one “page” at a time, meaning that if you retrieve a single number, the numbers nearby that value are also stored in fast-access cache memory. So, if each iteration of a loop uses values that are stored in disparate portions of RAM, each value could require retrieval of a separate page. Alternatively, if each loop iteration uses values from memory that are stored nearby one another, many numbers in a row can be retrieved using a single RAM access. Since RAM access speeds are significantly slower than cache access speeds, something as small as a difference in loop ordering can make a huge difference in speed.

3. Is the code doing redundant computations? While modern computers can perform many calculations in the time it takes to access one page of RAM, some calculations are costly enough to warrant computing it only once and storing the result for later reuse. This is especially pertinent for things that are performed a large number of times. For example, consider the following two algorithms:

for (i=1; i<10000; i++) {
d[i] = u[i-1]/h/h - 2.0*u[i]/h/h + u[i+1]/h/h;
}


and

double hinv2 = 1.0/h/h;
for (i=1; i<10000; i++) {
d[i] = (u[i-1] - 2.0*u[i] + u[i+1])*hinv2;
}


Since floating-point division is significantly more costly than multiplication (roughly $$10\times$$), and the division by $$h^2$$ is done redundantly both within and between loop iterations, the second of these algorithms is typically much faster than the first.

4. Is the code doing unnecessary data copies? In many programming languages, a function can be written to use either call-by-value or call-by-reference.

In call-by-value, all arguments to a function are copied from the calling routine into a new set of variables that are local to the called function. This allows the called function to modify the input variables without concern about corrupting data in the calling routine.

In call-by-reference, the called function only receives memory references to the actual data held by the calling routine. This allows the called function to directly modify the data held by the calling routine.

While call-by-reference is obviously more “dangerous,” it avoids unnecessary (and costly) memory allocation/copying/deallocation in the executing code. As such, highly efficient code typically uses call-by-reference, with the programmer responsible for ensuring that data requiring protection in the calling program is manually copied before function calls, or that the functions themselves are constructed to avoid modifying the underlying data.

In C and C++, call-by-value is the default, whereas Fortran uses call-by-reference. However in C, pointers may be passed through function calls to emulate call-by-reference. In C++, either pointers can be sent through function calls, or arguments may be specified as being passed by reference (using the & symbol).

Find what you can fix, so long as you do not change the mathematical result. Delete and re-compile the executable,

$rm driver1.exe; make driver1.exe  re-run the executable $ ./driver1.exe


Re-examine the results using gprof, and repeat the optimization process until you are certain that the code has been sufficiently optimized. You should be able to achieve a significant performance improvement (at least 40% faster than the original).

Write down the total runtime required for your hand-optimized program. Copy your updated code to the file file_new.cpp (again, use the appropriate extension for your coding language).

### Compiler optimizations¶

The compiler may also attempt to optimize the code itself. Try rebuilding the original (non-optimized) code with the compiler flag -O2 (capital ‘o’ for “Optimize”, followed by a ‘2’ to denote the optimization level):

1. Replace the current flag -O0 in your Makefile with the flag -O2.

2. Copy the original file back, e.g.

$cp file_old.cpp file.cpp  3. Delete the old executable, $ rm driver1.exe

4. Re-compile driver1.exe,

$make driver1.exe  5. Re-run driver1.exe, $ ./driver1.exe


Does this result in faster code than the original? Is it faster than your hand-optimized code? Write down the total run-time required for this test.

Repeat the above steps, but this time using both the -O2 compiler flag and your hand-optimized code in file_new.cpp. Determine you can see how well the code runs when you provide a hand-optimized code to then allow the compiler to optimize as well. How does this perform in comparison to the other three runs?

Note

There are a great many compiler optimizations that you can try with your executable. For a full description of all the possible options available with the GNU compiler collection, try

$man gcc  The -O# options allow specification of optimization levels 0, 1, 2 and 3, each one applies additional optimizations to the previous level. Typically, compilers also implement a basic -O flag that defaults to -O2. However, there are additional optimizations that can be performed by the compiler, as will be discussed in the compiler’s man page or online documentation. ## Debugging and debuggers¶ ### Enabling Debugging Information¶ In most compilers (including GNU and PGI), you can enable debugging information through adding the -g compiler flag. Add this flag to the compilation commands in the Makefile for the target driver2.exe, and then compile the executable, $ make driver2.exe


Run the new executable. It should die with an error message about a segmentation violation (segmentation fault) or bus error, depending on the compiler/OS, e.g.

$./driver2.exe Segmentation fault  There are many ways to track down this kind of error (e.g. adding print statements everywhere, staring intently hoping for an epiphany, randomly changing things to see what happens). In this session we will use the most efficient debugging approach, that of using a tool to track down the bug for us. The tool we will use is the GNU debugger, which can be accessed through running the faulty executable program from within the debugging program itself. Load the executable into gdb with the command $ gdb driver2.exe


At the gdb prompt, type run to start the executable. It will automatically stop at the line where the segmentation fault occurs.

In another terminal window, you can type man gdb to learn more about how to use the debugger (or you can click here to view the gdb man page on the web.

• Perhaps the most valuable gdb command is print that may be used to see the internal value of a specified variable, e.g.

(gdb) print i


will print out the current value of the iteration variable i).

• The help command inside of gdb may be used to find out more information on how to use the program itself.

• The quit command inside of gdb will exit the debugger and return you to the command line. Alternatively, you may just type ^d ([control]-[d]) to exit.

### Fixing the Bug¶

C users:
Open both the files driver2.c and tridiag_matvec.c, and see if you can find/fix the problem by using gdb and print statements as appropriate.
C++ users:
Open both the files driver2.cpp and tridiag_matvec.cpp, and see if you can find/fix the problem by using gdb and print statements as appropriate.
F90 users:
Open both the files driver2.f90 and tridiag_matvec.f90, and see if you can find/fix the problem by using gdb and print statements as appropriate.

A word of warning, the location of the segmentation fault or bus error is not always where the problem is located. Segmentation faults generally occur due to an attempt within the program to read to or write from an illegal memory location, i.e. a memory location that is not a part of a currently-available variable. Examples of bugs that can cause a seg-fault are iterating outside of the bounds of an array, or a mismatch between the arguments that a program uses to call a function and the arguments that the function expects to receive.

Note

Tips for tracking/fixing segmentation faults

Using a debugger:

1. determine exactly the line of code causing the fault,

2. if the fault is inside a loop, determine exactly which iteration of the loop is causing the fault,

3. use print statements in the debugger to see which variable is uninitialized, e.g. to see if the array x has entry i you could use

(gdb) print x[i]


Once you identify the precise location of the segmentation fault, go back to see where the data is allocated. Was it allocated with a different size, shape or type? Was it not allocated at all?

If the data is allocated in a different manner than it is being used, determine which location needs fixing and try your best.

Upon finding and fixing the bug causing the segmentation fault, the correctly-executing program should write the following line:

2-norm of product = 1.414213562373E+00


(or something within roundoff error of this result), and it should write the file r.txt that contains the result of the matrix-vector product. This output vector should contain all 0’s except for the first and last entries, which should be 1.

There are many freely-available Linux debugging utilites in addition to gdb. Most of these are graphical (i.e. point-and-click), and in fact use gdb under the hood. Some of the more popular of these debuggers include: ddd, nemiver, eclipse, zerobugs, edb. However, of this set the ManeFrame cluster currently only has gdb installed (ask your system administrators for others you want/need).

Additionally, there are some highly advanced non-free Linux debugging utilities available (all typically graphical), including TotalView, DDT, idb (only works with the Intel compilers), and PGI’s pgdbg (graphical) and pgdebug (text version). Of these, the ManeFrame cluster has both pgdbg and pgdebug.

The usage of most of the above debuggers is similar to gdb, except that in graphical debuggers it can be easier to view the data/instruction stack. The primary benefit of the non-free debuggers is their support for debugging parallel jobs that use OpenMP, MPI, or hybrid MPI/OpenMP computing approaches (see session 9). In fact, some of these professional tools can even be used to debug code running on GPU accelerators.

If you’re interested in learning more about these, I recommend that you re-download the tarball for this session, load the pgi module, update the Makefile to use the -g option along with the relevant PGI compiler (pgcc, pgc++ or pgfortran), and launch the job in the pgdbg debugger like you did with gdb:

\$ pgdbg ./driver2.exe


Press the “play” button to start the executable running, and use the mouse to interact with the debugger as needed.

Note

SMU pays for a five-seat PGI license, meaning that only five distinct compilation/debugging processes with the PGI tools may be run simultaneously. Typically, five is much more than sufficient for a campus of our size, since users spend most of their time writing code, preparing input parameters and scripts for running simulations, or post-processing simulation data; the time spent actually compiling and using a debugger is minimal. However, if everyone in the workshop tries this simultaneously, we would obviously exceed the five “seats,” which is why this is left as a personal exercise.