How to Run raytrace or siteviewer related program in Parallel Computing Toolbox?

Question

伟林朱 2024-5-15

1
链接

此问题的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/2118951-how-to-run-raytrace-or-siteviewer-related-program-in-parallel-computing-toolbox

回答： Alan 2024-7-1

I am attempting to simulate coverage for different 'txsites' across various osm maps, aiming to expedite the process through parallelization. However, it appears that 'siteviewer' is not compatible with the Parallel Computing Toolbox.

1. I tried to create a 'siteviewer' object within a parallel loop:

pm = propagationModel("raytracing", ...
    "Method", "sbr", ...
    "MaxNumReflections", 5);
osmMaps = ["hongkong.osm","chicago.osm","manhattan.osm"];
lats = [22.27,41.87,40.71];
lons = [114.15,-87.63,-74.00];
parfor i=1:3
    viewer = siteviewer('Buildings', osmMaps(i), 'Terrain', "none", 'Basemap', "darkwater");
    txs = txsite(Latitude=lats(i),Longitude=lons(i));
    pd = coverage(txs, pm, 'Map', viewer);
    disp(pd);
    close(viewer);
end

The above code resulted in the following error: Error using siteviewer, Timeout waiting for response. Despite adjusting several initialization parameters, the error persisted. When I changed 'parfor' to 'for', the program ran without any errors. My understanding is that 'siteviewer' objects cannot be created within 'parfor'.

2. Consequently, I altered my parallelization strategy by creating the 'siteviewer' object in advance and referencing it within the 'parfor' loop:

viewer = siteviewer('Buildings', 'hongkong.osm', 'Terrain', "none", 'Basemap', "darkwater");
lats = [22.27,22.273,22.275];
lons = [114.15,114.152,114.154];
parfor i = 1:3
    txs = txsite(Latitude=lats(i),Longitude=lons(i)); % Each iteration, 'txs' are at different locations.
    pd = coverage(txs, pm, 'Map', viewer);
end
close(viewer);

Referencing the 'viewer' object within 'parfor' still led to errors.

Output: Warning: While loading an object of class 'siteviewer':

Variables of this type are not subscriptable using dot indexing.

3. Further,I examined the source code of the 'coverage' function and debugged the parallel code.

viewer = siteviewer('Buildings', 'hongkong', 'Terrain', "none", 'Basemap', "darkwater");
future = parfeval(@()viewer, 1); % Assuming 'viewer' is already created.
[~, thisResult] = fetchNext([future]);
% Output: Warning: While loading an object of class 'siteviewer':
%         Variables of this type are not subscriptable using dot indexing.
future = parfeval(@()siteviewer.all, 1); % Assuming existing 'siteviewer' objects.
[~, thisResult] = fetchNext([future]);
% Output: thisResult = 0x0 cell
future = parfeval(@()siteviewer.current, 1); % Assuming existing 'siteviewer' objects.
[~, thisResult] = fetchNext([future]);
%Output: error using siteviewer, Timeout waiting for response.

I am puzzled, as the computation for Ray Tracing is slow, cannot be expedited using GPU acceleration, nor can it utilize the Parallel Computing Toolbox, resulting in low efficiency. Is there any solution to run 'coverage' in parallel?

I have consulted many Q&As, including the following: answer_link

However, this Answer is evidently incorrect; the 1000 rays within a cell are identical, failing to achieve parallel acceleration, and moreover, the rays were computed incorrectly. Based on the issues I've encountered, 'raytrace' in a parallel loop is unable to access previously created 'viewer' objects, and the 'Map' in 'raytrace(tx,rx)' differs from the one I defined, leading to incorrect results.

0 个评论
显示 -2更早的评论隐藏 -2更早的评论

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

Answer 1

Alan 2024-7-1

0
链接

此回答的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/2118951-how-to-run-raytrace-or-siteviewer-related-program-in-parallel-computing-toolbox#answer_1479046

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

Hi 伟林朱,

I’ve faced the same issue with siteviewer while running it inside parfor. There is an undocumented fix for this, which is to provide the name-value pair “Hidden”, and true as follows:

viewer = siteviewer('Buildings', osmMaps(i), 'Terrain', "none", 'Basemap', "darkwater", "Hidden", true); 

But the downside is that there will be no visuals. On the other hand, the propagation data obtained with “parfor” do match with that obtained from using “for”.

Regards.