Michael Clark Harvard University

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

GPU Mixed-precision

linear equation

solver for

lattice QCD

**Michael** **Clark**

**Harvard** **University**

with

R. Babich, K. Barros, R. Brower, J. Chen and C. Rebbi

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Quantum

ChromoDynamics

• QCD is the theory of the strong force that binds nucleons

• Impose local SU(3) symmetry on vacuum

• Color charge analogous to electric charge of EM

tice QCD path integral

N f

• Lagrangian of the theory very simple to write down

〈Ω〉 = 1

Z

iγμ LQCD = ψi ( (Dμ)ij - mδij)

ψj- Gμν aGμν a

• Path integral formulation

Introduction

2 • Infinite dimensional integral

(N f

�

〈Ω〉 = 1

Z

[dU]e −Sg(U) [det M(U)] α Ω(U)

�

[dU]e − � d 4 xL(U) Ω(U)

4 ) for Wilson (staggered) fermions, M = M † M

• Theory is strictly non-perturbative at low energies

− 10 9 degrees of freedom ⇒ Monte Carlo integration

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

D path integral

〈Ω〉 = 1

Z

Lattice QCD

• Lattice QCD path integral

〈Ω〉 = 1

Z

• Only known non-perturbative method is lattice QCD

�

Introduction

• Discretize and finitize spacetime

α = N f

2 (N f

Introduction

• 4d periodic spacetime lattice (e.g., 128 4 x 3 x 4 dof)

• 108-109 dimension integral => Monte Carlo integration

importance sampling

• Interpret as a Boltzmann weight

• Use importance sampling 〈Ω〉 ≈ 1

�

[dU]e

Z

N�

Ω(Ui)

− � d4xL(U) • LatticeΩ(U) QCD path integral

�

〈Ω〉 = 1

�

〈Ω〉 = 1

Z

[dU]e −Sg(U) [det M(U)] α Ω(U)

• Ab initio calculation to verify QCD is theory of strong force

�

[dU]e − � d 4 xL(U) Ω(U)

4 ) for Wilson (staggered) fermions, M = M † M

• 10 8 − 10 9 degrees of freedom ⇒ Monte Carlo integration

[dU]e −Sg(U) [det M(U)] α Ω(U)

• Interpret e −Sg det M α as a Boltzmann weight, and use

) for Wilson (staggered) fermions, M = M i=1

• Lattice QCD is a 2 step process

• Generate (gluon field) configurations with weight

3

• Calculate mean observables

† M

egrees of freedom ⇒ Monte Carlo integration

Sg det Mα [dU]e

Z

as a Boltzmann weight, and use

sampling

−Sg(U)

[det M(U)]

〈Ω〉 = 1

�

Z

α = Nf ) for Wilson (staggered) fermions

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

2 (N f

4

〈Ω〉 = N

1

Introduction

[dU]e − � d 4 xL(U) Ω(U

〈Ω〉 ≈ 1 N �• 10

Ω(U )

8 − 109 degrees of freedom ⇒ Monte Carlo

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

topology

string

Visualisation

coutesty of

M. Di Pierro

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Lattice QCD

• Many computational / algorithmic challenges, e.g.:

• Discretization

• Monte Carlo integration

• Molecular dynamics

• Matrix function evaluation

• Sign problem

• Solving systems of linear equations

• Grand challenge problem

• Peta/Exaflops required

• GPUs as a means of getting there?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

GPU Hardware

GTX 280

Flops: single ~1 Tflop, double ~80 Gflops

Memory 1GB, Bandwidth 141 GBs -1

Tesla 1070

Flops: single ~4 Tflops, double ~320 Gflops

Memory 16GB, Bandwidth 408 GBs -1

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

230 Watts, $350

900 Watts, $8000

Tesla 1060

Flops: single ~1 Tflop, double ~80 Gflops

Memory 4GB, Bandwidth 102 GBs -1

230 Watts, $1200

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Solving Large Systems

of Equations

• Assumptions:

• A is sparse (O(N) non-zeros)

• N large (10 7 -10 10 )

Ax = b

• In general the explicit matrix inverse is never needed

• Only interested in solution x to some precision ε

• Gaussian elimination O(N 3 )

• Indirect iterative solvers scale as O(N) - O(N 2 )

Iterative Linear Solvers

• Many possible iterative solvers

• Optimal method will depend on

• Nature of matrix: SPD, HPD, RPD, indefinite etc.

• Nature of hardware: serial, MP, geometry, comms overhead etc.

• E.g.,

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

• Jacobi

• Gauss-Seidel

• Multigrid

• Krylov subspace methods

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Krylov Solvers

• e.g., Conjugate Gradients

Dominant cost

is mat-vec

• Krylov solvers can all be decomposed into simple linalg kernels

• Matrix-vector product is inherently parallel

• Ideal for GPU implementation

• Just need a fast mat-vec?

while (|rk|> ε) {

βk = (rk,rk)/(rk-1,rk-1)

}

pk+1 = rk - βkpk

α = (rk,rk)/(pk+1,Apk+1)

rk+1 = rk - αApk+1

xk+1 = xk + αpk+1

k = k+1

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Dirac operator of QCD

• From the QCD Lagrangian

iγμ LQCD = ψi ( (Dμ)ij - mδij)

ψj- Gμν aGμν a

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Dirac operator of QCD

• The Dirac operator represent quark interactions

iγ μ (Dμ)ij - mδij

• Essentially a PDE with background SU(3) field

• Many discretization strategies

• Wilson discretization

• others: Overlap, staggered etc.

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wilson Matrix of QCD

iγ μ (Dμ)ij - mδij

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wilson Matrix of QCD

Σμ ((1-γ μ )Ux,y μ δx+μ,y + (1+γ μ )Uy,x μ† δx-μ,y) + (4+m)δx,y

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wilson Matrix of QCD

Σμ ((1-γ μ )Ux,y μ δx+μ,y + (1+γ μ )Uy,x μ† δx-μ,y) + (4+m)δx,y

• U is discretized gauge field (SU(3))

• γ are Dirac matrices (4x4)

• 8 off-diagonals in spacetime, mass on diagonal

• Off-diagonals are 12x12 matrices (SU(3) x γ)

• Each point in spacetime referred to as a spinor

• Matrix not Hermitian but γ5-Hermitian

• Block “Laplace” in 4 dimensions

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Wilson Matrix of QCD

Σμ ((1-γ μ )Ux,y μ δx+μ,y + (1+γ μ )Uy,x μ† δx-μ,y) + (4+m)δx,y

• Quark physics requires solution A(U)x=b

• Krylov solvers standard method

• Condition number given by ~(quark mass) -1

• Up / down quark masses are light

• Computationally expensive

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

SpMV I

• Standard matrix-vector libraries available (Bell and Garland)

• Pack your matrix, call library function, unpack

• Ignorant of structure and symmetries of problem

• Bad for storage (double storage of matrix elements)

• Bad for operation count (200% flops)

• Bad for compute intensity (1:2 flop / byte ratio)

• Consider single precision and single GPU only

!"#$%&'

$"

$!

#"

#!

"

!

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

%&& %'()*+,-.-/0 %'()*12,34/0 567

(a) Single Precision

Bell and Garland (NVIDIA) 2009

'(( ')*+,-./0/12 ')*+,34.5612 789

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

SpMV II

• Wilson matrix is just a block stencil

• Much better to consider matrix as a nearest neighbor gather operation

• Assign thread to each spacetime point -> massive parallelism

• Avoids double storage of matrix elements (Hermiticity)

• Repetitive structure means no explicit indexing required

• Can order data optimally for any given hardware

• Reorder field elements for coalescing

• Large reduction in flops and required bandwidth

• 1:1 flop / bandwidth ratio

• Better, but still very bandwidth limited

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

SpMV III

• Wilson matrix is a matrix of matrices

• SU(3) matrices are all unitary complex matrices with det = 1

• 18 numbers with 4 orthogonality and 6 normality constraints

• 12 number parameterization: bytes 80%, flops 128%

(

a1 a2 a3

)

a1 a2 a3

b1 b2 b3

c = (axb)*

b1 b2 b3

c1 c2 c3

• Minimal 8 number parameterization: bytes 71%, flops 163%

a1 a2 a3

(

b1 b2 b3

( ) arg(a1) arg(c1) Re(a2) Im(a2)

)

Re(a3) Im(a3) Re(b1) Im(b1)

c1 c2 c3

• Obtain a1 and c1 from normality

( )

• Reconstruct b2, b3, c2, c3 from SU(2) rotation

Gflops

140

120

100

80

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

12 reconstruct

8 reconstruct

0 32 64 96 128

Temporal Extent

Wilson Matrix-Vector Performance

Single Precision (V=24 3 xT)

ions

SpMV IV

CD software to use the DeGrand-Rossi basis

ch appear in the Wilson-Dirac operator offre

given by

⎞

±i • Can impose similarity transforms to improve sparsity

0 ⎟

0 ⎠ • Can globally change Dirac matrix basis

1

P ±2 We must always load all spinor components regardless of the dimension or

direction. An alternative basis is the UKQCD basis, in which the projectors

have the form

⎛

⎞

1 0 0 ∓1

⎜

= ⎜ 0 1 ±1 0 ⎟

⎝

P

0 ±1 1 0 ⎠

∓1 0 0 1

±1 ⎛

⎞

1 0 0 ±i

⎜

= ⎜ 0 1 ±i 0 ⎟

⎝ 0 ∓i 1 0 ⎠

∓i 0 0 1

P ±2 ⎛

⎞

1 0 0 ±1

⎜

= ⎜ 0 1 ∓1 0 ⎟

⎝ 0 ∓1 1 0 ⎠

±1 0 0 1

0

i

0

1

⎞

⎟

⎠ P ±4 =

⎛

⎜

⎝

P ±3 =

1

0

±1

⎞

0 ±1 0

1 0 ±1 ⎟

0 1 0 ⎠

0 ±1 0 1

.

P ±3 ⎛

1 0

⎜

= ⎜ 0 1

⎝ ∓i 0

±i

0

1

0

∓i

0

0 ±i 0 1

components regardless of the dimension or

s the UKQCD basis, in which the projectors

• Impose local color transformation (gauge transformation)

⎞

±i • SU(3) field = unit matrix in temporal direction

0 ⎟

0 ⎠

• Must calculate this transformation (done once only)

1

• In total 33% reduction in bandwidth

P ±2 ⎛

⎞

1 0 0 ±1

⎜

= ⎜ 0 1 ∓1 0 ⎟

⎝ 0 ∓1 1 0 ⎠

±1 0 0 1

⎛

2

⎜

+4

= ⎜ 0

⎝ 0

0

2

0

⎞

0 0

0 0 ⎟

0 0 ⎠

0 0 0 0

P −4 ⎛

⎞

0 0 0 0

⎜

= ⎜ 0 0 0 0 ⎟

⎝ 0 0 2 0 ⎠

0 0 0 2

.

The advantage of this approach is that in the temporal dimension we need

only load the upper (lower) spin components for the backwards (forwards)

gather. This halves the amount of bandwidth required to perform the temporal

gather, and so increases the kernel’s performance.

References

[1] G. I. Egri, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, D. Nogradi and K. K. Szabo,

“Lattice QCD as a video game,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 177

(2007) 631 [arXiv:hep-lat/0611022].

18

is that in the temporal dimension we need

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

⎛

⎜

⎝

1 0 ±i 0

0 1 0 ∓i

∓i 0 1 0

0 ±i 0 1

⎞

⎞

⎟

⎠ P +4 =

⎟

⎠ P ±4 =

⎛

⎜

⎝

⎛

⎜

⎝

2 0 0 0

0 2 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1 0 ±1 0

0 1 0 ±1

±1 0 1 0

0 ±1 0 1

⎞

⎟

⎠ P −4 =

⎛

⎜

⎝

⎞

⎟

⎠ .

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0

0 0 0 2

⎞

⎟

⎠ .

Gflops

140

120

100

80

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

12 reconstruct

12 reconstruct, GF

8 reconstruct

8 reconstruct, GF

0 32 64 96 128

Temporal Extent

Wilson Matrix-Vector Performance

Single Precision (V=24 3 xT)

Gflops

140

120

100

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

12 reconstruct

12 reconstruct, GF

8 reconstruct

8 reconstruct, GF

80

0 32 64

Temporal Extent

96 128

Wilson Matrix-Vector Performance

Single Precision, padded (V=24 3 xT)

Gflops

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

12 reconstruct, GF

8 reconstruct, GF

0 20 40 60 80 100

Temporal Extent

Wilson Matrix-Vector Performance

Double Precision (V = 24 3 xT)

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Krylov Solver

Implementation

• Complete solver must be on GPU

• Transfer b to GPU

• Solve Ax=b

• Transfer x to CPU

• Besides matrix-vector, require BLAS level 1 type operations

• AXPY operations: b += ax

• NORM operations: c = (b,b)

• CUBLAS library available

• Better to fuse kernels to minimize bandwidth

• e.g., AXPY_NORM

Gflops

120

110

100

90

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Performance of Dirac-Wilson Linear Equation Solver

Wilson matrix-vector

BiCGstab

CG

V = 24 3

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Temporal Extent

Wilson Inverter Performance

Single Precision (12 reconstruct, V=24 3 xT)

Mixed-Precision Solvers

• Require solver tolerance beyond limit of single precision

• Double precision is at least x2 slower

• Use defect-correction (iterative refinement)

Double precision

mat-vec and

accumulate

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

while (|rk|> ε) {

}

rk = b - Axk

pk = A -1 rk

xk+1 = xk + pk

• Double precision done can be done on CPU or GPU

• Can always check GPU gets correct answer

Inner single

precision solve

• Disadvantage is each new single precision solve is a restart

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Mixed-Precision Solvers

• Want to use mixed precision, but avoid restart penalty

• Reliable Updates (Sleijpen and Van der Worst 1996)

• Iterated residual diverges from true residual

• Occasionally replace iterated residual with true residual

• Also use second accumulator for solution vector

if (|rk|< δ|b|) {

rk = b - Axk

b = rk

y = y + xk

xk = 0

• Idea: Use high precision for reliable update

}

Number of iterations

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Increasing conditioner number

0

-0.42 -0.415 -0.41 -0.405 -0.4

mass

Wilson Inverter Iterations

(ε=10 -12 , V=24 3 x64, BiCGstab)

Double

Reliable

Defect

Time (seconds)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Increasing conditioner number

Double

Single

m crit

-0.42 -0.41 -0.4

mass

Wilson Inverter Time to Solution

(ε=10 -8 , V=32 3 x96, BiCGstab)

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Half Precision

• Single-precision can be used to find double-precision result

• GPU kernel is still bandwidth bound

• Use half precision for inner solve?

• Performance increases > 210 Gflops

Gflops

240

200

160

120

Single

Half

0 32 64 96 128

Temporal Extent

Number of iterations

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Increasing conditioner number

0

-0.42 -0.415 -0.41 -0.405 -0.4

mass

Wilson Inverter Iterations

(ε=10 -12 , V=24 3 x64, BiCGstab)

Double

Reliable S

Defect S

Reliable H

Defect H

Time to solution / s

300

250

200

150

100

50

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Double

Single 8

Half 12

Increasing conditioner number

0

-0.42 -0.415 -0.41 -0.405 -0.4

mass

Wilson Inverter Time to Solution

(ε=10 -8 , V=32 3 x96, BiCGstab)

5

4

3

Speedup

2

1

0

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

How Fast is

Fast?

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Performance Per MFLOP

=

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Performance Per Watt

=

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Performance Per $

=

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Case Study: Jlab

• Require 150 Gflops sustained performance per job

• Nehalem-Infiniband cluster

• 8 nodes

• $0.20 per Mflop

• GPU solution

• 4x GTX 285 per Nehalem box

• Trivial parallelism

• $0.02 per Mflop

• 30 Tflops sustained

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

• Need to scale to many GPUs

• Size of problem

• Raw flops

• Preliminary implementation

Multi-GPU

• No overlap of comms and compute

• 1 MPI process per GPU

• 90% efficiency on 4 GPUs (S1070)

• Many GPUs challenging but possible

• 1 GPU per PCIe slot

• New algorithms

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

• Need to scale to many GPUs

• Size of problem

• Raw flops

• Preliminary implementation

Multi-GPU

• No overlap of comms and compute

• 1 MPI process per GPU

• 90% efficiency on 4 GPUs (S1070)

• Many GPUs challenging but possible

• 1 GPU per PCIe slot

0

• New algorithms 1 2 3 4

Number of GPUs

Parallel Efficiency

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

V = 8 3 128

V = 32 4

Matrix-vector products

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

CG

MG-GCR

Increasing conditioner number

-0.42 -0.41 -0.4

mass

Iterations Until convergence: MG vs CG

(ε=10 -8 , V=32 3 x96)

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Multigrid on GPU

Fine Grid

Intermediate Grid

Coarse Grid

• Poor mapping of multigrid onto MPP architectures

• Heterogenous Algorithm => Heterogenous Architecture

• Fine and intermediate grid operations performed on GPU

• Coarse grid operators performed on CPU

GPU GPU GPU GPU

CPU

• GPU + CPU combination ideal for multigrid

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Conclusions

• Fantastic algorithmic performance obtained on today GPUs

• Flops per Watt, Flops per $

• Game changer for QCD

• Fermi expected to be even more so

• Some work required to get best performance

• Standard libraries were not an option

• Knowledge of the problem required

• Algorithm design critical component

• Flops are free, bandwidth is expensive

• Mixed-precision methods

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

More Info...

• mikec@seas.harvard.edu

• Source code available

http://lattice.bu.edu/quda

• Paper online as of today

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3191