Declare gpuArray while executing on gpu

2019 1 4
1 个回答
更新时间：2019 11 15
3 次查看（30 天）

0 个投票

I'm trying to modify my code working well for a CPU setup to a GPU setup. It appears to be more complicated than what I had expected.
I'm using arrayfun to send the computation to GPU for my monte carlo simulations:
MC_Paths = arrayfun(@Heston_One_Simulation, Param1, Param2, and so on)
with the beginning of the function Heston_One_Simulation defined as
function [S] = Heston_One_Simulation(Param1,Params2, so on...)
HistoCorrelatedPaths1=zeros(N,NbAssets,BatchSize,'gpuArray');
...
end
And I get the following error message:
Function passed as first input argument contains unsupported or unknown function 'zeros'. For more information see Tips and Restrictions.
Is it impossible to declare new variables while running on a GPU ?
I'm sure I'll have more problems once this one is solved but let's start with that one.

请先登录，再回答此问题。

回答（1 个）

Joss Knight
Joss Knight 2019-1-5

0 个投票

GPU arrayfun functions can only do scalar operations. You can declare new scalar variables but you can't create new arrays.

5 个评论
显示 3更早的评论 隐藏 3更早的评论

cedric W
cedric W 2019-1-7
I understand then.
Second thing, in case output matrix was not the same size than the input ,on a CPU with arrayfun you would use uniformOutput False. How about on GPU ?
I.e. say my output matrix is N x Input matrix
Joss Knight
Joss Knight 2019-1-7
You should read up on GPU arrayfun by following the link in that error. You cannot have an output that is a different size from the input for gpuArray inputs (apart from within the rules of singleton dimension expansion).
cedric W
cedric W 2019-1-7
编辑：cedric W 2019-1-7
This is what I read about the output size hence my second question.
My underlying question was to know what could be a workaround I should think about before starting implementing things that won't suit in the end. Do you have any possible solutions ?
GPU is suited for Monte Carlo simulations. But MC Sim are generally used to get the full path of the stock prices (N above is the number of paths per simulation), otherwise the product is too complex to price. So I guess that there is a way to land on my feet.
Joss Knight
Joss Knight 2019-1-7
Most problems are solved using a combination of arrayfun, pagefun, and standard vectorisation. You need to look for opportunity to batch up all your work as much as possible. Arrayfun can be used wherever you have a sequence of element-wise maths, but isn't usually necessary because MATLAB is clever enough to group all those operations into a single kernel for you where possible.
Essentially you are looking to remove all the loops in your code and replace them with masks, vector algebra and arrayfun/pagefun calls.
This is a good blog post to get you on the right track:
https://devblogs.nvidia.com/high-performance-matlab-gpu-acceleration/
Marios
Marios 2019-11-15
Is this way the example paralleldemo_gpu_arrayfun does not show any improvement between the standard "tgpuObject" and GPU arrayfun() "tgpuArrayfun"? I have tried different GPUs (1080, 1650) on 2019b and both cases return the same speed. I assume it's because horner() has been optimized in 2019b to "bunch" all the kernels in one anyway eliminating the need for GPU arrayfun()?

请先登录，再进行评论。

类别

在 帮助中心 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 GPU Computing in MATLAB 的更多信息

标签

提问:

cedric W
cedric W
2019-1-4

评论：

Marios
Marios
2019-11-15

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by