为什么相同的 OpenCL 代码在 Intel Xeon CPU 和 NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti GPU 上有不同的输出？
Why does the same OpenCL code have different outputs from Intel Xeon CPU and NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti GPU?
我正在尝试使用 OpenCL 并行化 Monte Carlo 模拟。我使用 MWC64X 作为统一随机数生成器。代码 运行 在不同的英特尔 CPU 上运行良好，因为并行计算的输出非常接近顺序计算。
Using OpenCL device: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630L v3 @ 1.80GHz
Literal influence running time: 0.029048 seconds r1 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029762 seconds r2 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029742 seconds r3 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.02971 seconds ra seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029225 seconds trust1-57 seqInfl= 0.6001
Literal influence running time: 0.04992 seconds trust110-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.034636 seconds trust4-57 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.049079 seconds trust57-110 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.024442 seconds trust57-4 seqInfl= 0.8026
Literal influence running time: 0.04946 seconds trust33-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.049071 seconds trust57-33 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.053117 seconds trust4-1 seqInfl= 0.1208
Literal influence running time: 0.051642 seconds trust57-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052052 seconds trust57-64 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052118 seconds trust64-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.051998 seconds trust57-7 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052069 seconds trust7-1 seqInfl= 0
Total number of literals: 17
Sequential influence running time: 0.71728 seconds
Sequential maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 0.8026
index1= 17 size= 51 dim1_size= 6
sum0:4781 influence0:0.478100 sum2:4781 influence2:0.478100 sum6:0 influence6:0.000000 sum10:0 sum12:0 influence12:0.000000 sum7:0 influence7:0.000000 influence10:0.000000 sum4:5962 influence4:0.596200 sum8:7971 influence8:0.797100 sum1:4781 influence1:0.478100 sum3:4781 influence3:0.478100 sum13:0 influence13:0.000000 sum11:1261 influence11:0.126100 sum9:0 influence9:0.000000 sum14:0 influence14:0.000000 sum5:0 influence5:0.000000 sum15:0 influence15:0.000000 sum16:0 influence16:0.000000
Parallel influence running time: 0.054391 seconds
Parallel maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 Infl=0.7971
然而，当我 运行 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 上的代码，安装了 NVIDIA-SMI 430.40 和 CUDA 10.1 以及 OpenCL 1.2 CUDA 时，输出如下：
Using OpenCL device: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Influence:
Literal influence running time: 0.011119 seconds r1 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011238 seconds r2 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011408 seconds r3 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.01109 seconds ra seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011132 seconds trust1-57 seqInfl= 0.6001
Literal influence running time: 0.018978 seconds trust110-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.013093 seconds trust4-57 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.018968 seconds trust57-110 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.009105 seconds trust57-4 seqInfl= 0.8026
Literal influence running time: 0.018753 seconds trust33-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.018583 seconds trust57-33 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.02005 seconds trust4-1 seqInfl= 0.1208
Literal influence running time: 0.01957 seconds trust57-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019686 seconds trust57-64 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019632 seconds trust64-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019687 seconds trust57-7 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019859 seconds trust7-1 seqInfl= 0
Total number of literals: 17
Sequential influence running time: 0.272032 seconds
Sequential maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 0.8026
index1= 17 size= 51 dim1_size= 6
sum0:10000 sum1:10000 sum2:10000 sum3:10000 sum4:10000 sum5:0 sum6:0 sum7:0 sum8:10000 sum9:0 sum10:0 sum11:0 sum12:0 sum13:0 sum14:0 sum15:0 sum16:0
Parallel influence running time: 0.193581 seconds
"Influence" 值等于 sum*1.0/10000，因此并行影响仅由 1 和 0 组成，这是不正确的（在 GPU 运行s 中）并且在并行化时不会发生在英特尔 CPU.
当我检查随机数生成器的输出时 if(flag==0) printf("randint=%u",randint);，GPU 上的输出似乎全为零。下面是 clinfo 和 .cl 代码：
Device Name GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Device Vendor NVIDIA Corporation
Device Vendor ID 0x10de
Device Version OpenCL 1.2 CUDA
Driver Version 430.40
Device OpenCL C Version OpenCL C 1.2
Device Type GPU
Device Topology (NV) PCI-E, 68:00.0
Device Profile FULL_PROFILE
Device Available Yes
Compiler Available Yes
Linker Available Yes
Max compute units 28
Max clock frequency 1721MHz
Compute Capability (NV) 6.1
Device Partition (core)
Max number of sub-devices 1
Supported partition types None
Max work item dimensions 3
Max work item sizes 1024x1024x64
Max work group size 1024
Preferred work group size multiple 32
Warp size (NV) 32
Preferred / native vector sizes
char 1 / 1
short 1 / 1
int 1 / 1
long 1 / 1
half 0 / 0 (n/a)
float 1 / 1
double 1 / 1 (cl_khr_fp64)
Half-precision Floating-point support (n/a)
Single-precision Floating-point support (core)
Denormals Yes
Infinity and NANs Yes
Round to nearest Yes
Round to zero Yes
Round to infinity Yes
IEEE754-2008 fused multiply-add Yes
Support is emulated in software No
Correctly-rounded divide and sqrt operations Yes
Double-precision Floating-point support (cl_khr_fp64)
Denormals Yes
Infinity and NANs Yes
Round to nearest Yes
Round to zero Yes
Round to infinity Yes
IEEE754-2008 fused multiply-add Yes
Support is emulated in software No
Address bits 64, Little-Endian
Global memory size 11720130560 (10.92GiB)
Error Correction support No
Max memory allocation 2930032640 (2.729GiB)
Unified memory for Host and Device No
Integrated memory (NV) No
Minimum alignment for any data type 128 bytes
Alignment of base address 4096 bits (512 bytes)
Global Memory cache type Read/Write
Global Memory cache size 458752 (448KiB)
Global Memory cache line size 128 bytes
Image support Yes
Max number of samplers per kernel 32
Max size for 1D images from buffer 134217728 pixels
Max 1D or 2D image array size 2048 images
Max 2D image size 16384x32768 pixels
Max 3D image size 16384x16384x16384 pixels
Max number of read image args 256
Max number of write image args 16
Local memory type Local
Local memory size 49152 (48KiB)
Registers per block (NV) 65536
Max number of constant args 9
Max constant buffer size 65536 (64KiB)
Max size of kernel argument 4352 (4.25KiB)
Queue properties
Out-of-order execution Yes
Profiling Yes
Prefer user sync for interop No
Profiling timer resolution 1000ns
Execution capabilities
Run OpenCL kernels Yes
Run native kernels No
Kernel execution timeout (NV) Yes
Concurrent copy and kernel execution (NV) Yes
Number of async copy engines 2
printf() buffer size 1048576 (1024KiB)
#define N 70 // N > index, which is the total number of literals
#define BASE 4294967296UL
//! Represents the state of a particular generator
typedef struct{ uint x; uint c; } mwc64x_state_t;
enum{ MWC64X_A = 4294883355U };
enum{ MWC64X_M = 18446383549859758079UL };
void MWC64X_Step(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint X=s->x, C=s->c;
uint Xn=MWC64X_A*X+C;
uint carry=(uint)(Xn<C); // The (Xn<C) will be zero or one for scalar
uint Cn=mad_hi(MWC64X_A,X,carry);
s->x=Xn;
s->c=Cn;
}
//! Return a 32-bit integer in the range [0..2^32)
uint MWC64X_NextUint(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint res=s->x ^ s->c;
MWC64X_Step(s);
return res;
}
__kernel void setInfluence(const int literals, const int size, const int dim1_size, __global int* lambdas, __global float* lambdap, __global int* dim2_size, __global float* influence){
int flag=get_global_id(0);
int sum=0;
int count=10000;
int assignment[N];
//or try to get newlambda like original version does
if(flag < literals){
mwc64x_state_t rng;
for(int i=0; i<count; i++){
for(int j=0; j<size; j++){
uint randint=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
float rand=randint*1.0/BASE;
//if(flag==0)
// printf("randint=%u",randint);
if(lambdap[j]<rand)
assignment[lambdas[j]]=0;
else
assignment[lambdas[j]]=1;
}
//the true case
assignment[flag]=1;
int valuet=0;
int index=0;
for(int m=0; m<dim1_size; m++){
int valueMono=1;
for(int n=0; n<dim2_size[m]; n++){
if(assignment[lambdas[index+n]]==0){
valueMono=0;
index+=dim2_size[m];
break;
}
}
if(valueMono==1){
valuet=1;
break;
}
}
//the false case
assignment[flag]=0;
int valuef=0;
index=0;
for(int m=0; m<dim1_size; m++){
int valueMono=1;
for(int n=0; n<dim2_size[m]; n++){
if(assignment[lambdas[index+n]]==0){
valueMono=0;
index+=dim2_size[m];
break;
}
}
if(valueMono==1){
valuef=1;
break;
}
}
sum += valuet-valuef;
}
influence[flag] = 1.0*sum/count;
printf("sum%d:%d\t", flag, sum);
}
}
运行在 GPU 上运行代码时可能会出现什么问题？是 MWC64X 吗？根据其作者的说法，它可以在 NVIDIA GPU 上表现良好。如果是这样，我该如何解决？如果不是，可能是什么问题？
伪随机数的所有用例都是真实-[PARALLEL]计算平台（不是语言，平台）中的下一级挑战。
要么，
有一些随机源，这让我们陷入了一次大规模的麻烦-并行请求将以真正 [PARALLEL] 的方式得到公平处理（在这里，硬件资源可能会有所帮助，但代价是无法在同一平台上重现相同的行为 "outside"（并且时刻，如果这样的源不是具有某些种子注入功能的软件操作，则可能会设置 "just"-伪随机算法，该算法创建一个纯 [SERIAL] 序列 -产生了"just"-伪随机数 ) )
或者，
有一些"shared"-生成器的伪随机数，享受更高级别的系统级熵（这有利于产生 "quality" 的伪随机性）但以纯串行依赖为代价（不可能并行执行，串行序列得到一个服务一个接一个地按顺序进行）并且可重复 运行 的机会几乎为零（可重复科学的必要条件）提供可重复的相同序列，这是测试和方法验证案例所需的。
继续：
代码可能会使用工作项-"private"伪随机生成函数（为了两者[=47，隐私是必须的=] 并行代码执行和生成这些伪随机数的相互独立性（非干预过程）），但每个实例都必须 a) 独立初始化，以便提供可在并行化代码中实现的预期随机性水平 -运行s 和 b) 任何 此类初始化应以可重复再现的方式执行方式，为了运行在不同的时间进行测试，经常使用不同的OpenCL目标计算平台。
对于 __kernel-s，不依赖于特定硬件的随机源，满足条件 a && b 就足以接收可重复再现的（相同）测试 "in vitro" 的结果，从而提供在通用生产级用例代码期间生成结果的合理随机方法-运行s "in vivo".
net-运行 次（上面的基准测试）的比较似乎表明 Amdahl's law add-on overhead costs 加上工作原子性的尾端效应最终决定了 net-运行-time 在 XEON 上比 GPU 快 ~ 3.6x：
index1 = 17
size = 51
dim1_size = 6
sum0: 4781 influence0: 0.478100
sum2: 4781 influence2: 0.478100
sum6: 0 influence6: 0.000000
sum10: 0 influence10: 0.000000
sum12: 0 influence12: 0.000000
sum7: 0 influence7: 0.000000
sum4: 5962 influence4: 0.596200
sum8: 7971 influence8: 0.797100
sum1: 4781 influence1: 0.478100
sum3: 4781 influence3: 0.478100
sum13: 0 influence13: 0.000000
sum11: 1261 influence11: 0.126100
sum9: 0 influence9: 0.000000
sum14: 0 influence14: 0.000000
sum5: 0 influence5: 0.000000
sum15: 0 influence15: 0.000000
sum16: 0 influence16: 0.000000
Parallel influence running time: 0.054391 seconds on XEON E5-2630L v3 @ 1.80GHz using OpenCL
|....
index1 = 17 |....
size = 51 |....
dim1_size = 6 |....
sum0: 10000 |....
sum1: 10000 |....
sum2: 10000 |....
sum3: 10000 |....
sum4: 10000 |....
sum5: 0 |....
sum6: 0 |....
sum7: 0 |....
sum8: 10000 |....
sum9: 0 |....
sum10: 0 |....
sum11: 0 |....
sum12: 0 |....
sum13: 0 |....
sum14: 0 |....
sum15: 0 |....
sum16: 0 |....
Parallel influence running time: 0.193581 seconds on GeForce GTX 1080 Ti using OpenCL
（这开始是评论，事实证明这是问题的根源，所以我把它变成了答案。）
您没有在读取 mwc64x_state_t rng; 变量之前对其进行初始化，因此任何结果都将是未定义的：
mwc64x_state_t rng;
for(int i=0; i<count; i++){
for(int j=0; j<size; j++){
uint randint=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
其中 MWC64X_NextUint() 在更新之前立即从 rng 状态读取：
uint MWC64X_NextUint(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint res=s->x ^ s->c;
请注意，您可能希望为每个工作项设置不同的 RNG 种子，否则您会在结果中得到令人讨厌的相关伪影。
我正在尝试使用 OpenCL 并行化 Monte Carlo 模拟。我使用 MWC64X 作为统一随机数生成器。代码 运行 在不同的英特尔 CPU 上运行良好，因为并行计算的输出非常接近顺序计算。
Using OpenCL device: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630L v3 @ 1.80GHz
Literal influence running time: 0.029048 seconds r1 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029762 seconds r2 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029742 seconds r3 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.02971 seconds ra seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.029225 seconds trust1-57 seqInfl= 0.6001
Literal influence running time: 0.04992 seconds trust110-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.034636 seconds trust4-57 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.049079 seconds trust57-110 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.024442 seconds trust57-4 seqInfl= 0.8026
Literal influence running time: 0.04946 seconds trust33-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.049071 seconds trust57-33 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.053117 seconds trust4-1 seqInfl= 0.1208
Literal influence running time: 0.051642 seconds trust57-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052052 seconds trust57-64 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052118 seconds trust64-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.051998 seconds trust57-7 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.052069 seconds trust7-1 seqInfl= 0
Total number of literals: 17
Sequential influence running time: 0.71728 seconds
Sequential maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 0.8026
index1= 17 size= 51 dim1_size= 6
sum0:4781 influence0:0.478100 sum2:4781 influence2:0.478100 sum6:0 influence6:0.000000 sum10:0 sum12:0 influence12:0.000000 sum7:0 influence7:0.000000 influence10:0.000000 sum4:5962 influence4:0.596200 sum8:7971 influence8:0.797100 sum1:4781 influence1:0.478100 sum3:4781 influence3:0.478100 sum13:0 influence13:0.000000 sum11:1261 influence11:0.126100 sum9:0 influence9:0.000000 sum14:0 influence14:0.000000 sum5:0 influence5:0.000000 sum15:0 influence15:0.000000 sum16:0 influence16:0.000000
Parallel influence running time: 0.054391 seconds
Parallel maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 Infl=0.7971
然而，当我 运行 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 上的代码，安装了 NVIDIA-SMI 430.40 和 CUDA 10.1 以及 OpenCL 1.2 CUDA 时，输出如下：
Using OpenCL device: GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Influence:
Literal influence running time: 0.011119 seconds r1 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011238 seconds r2 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011408 seconds r3 seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.01109 seconds ra seqInfl= 0.4771
Literal influence running time: 0.011132 seconds trust1-57 seqInfl= 0.6001
Literal influence running time: 0.018978 seconds trust110-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.013093 seconds trust4-57 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.018968 seconds trust57-110 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.009105 seconds trust57-4 seqInfl= 0.8026
Literal influence running time: 0.018753 seconds trust33-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.018583 seconds trust57-33 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.02005 seconds trust4-1 seqInfl= 0.1208
Literal influence running time: 0.01957 seconds trust57-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019686 seconds trust57-64 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019632 seconds trust64-1 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019687 seconds trust57-7 seqInfl= 0
Literal influence running time: 0.019859 seconds trust7-1 seqInfl= 0
Total number of literals: 17
Sequential influence running time: 0.272032 seconds
Sequential maxInfluence Literal: trust57-4 0.8026
index1= 17 size= 51 dim1_size= 6
sum0:10000 sum1:10000 sum2:10000 sum3:10000 sum4:10000 sum5:0 sum6:0 sum7:0 sum8:10000 sum9:0 sum10:0 sum11:0 sum12:0 sum13:0 sum14:0 sum15:0 sum16:0
Parallel influence running time: 0.193581 seconds
"Influence" 值等于 sum*1.0/10000，因此并行影响仅由 1 和 0 组成，这是不正确的（在 GPU 运行s 中）并且在并行化时不会发生在英特尔 CPU.
当我检查随机数生成器的输出时 if(flag==0) printf("randint=%u",randint);，GPU 上的输出似乎全为零。下面是 clinfo 和 .cl 代码：
Device Name GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Device Vendor NVIDIA Corporation
Device Vendor ID 0x10de
Device Version OpenCL 1.2 CUDA
Driver Version 430.40
Device OpenCL C Version OpenCL C 1.2
Device Type GPU
Device Topology (NV) PCI-E, 68:00.0
Device Profile FULL_PROFILE
Device Available Yes
Compiler Available Yes
Linker Available Yes
Max compute units 28
Max clock frequency 1721MHz
Compute Capability (NV) 6.1
Device Partition (core)
Max number of sub-devices 1
Supported partition types None
Max work item dimensions 3
Max work item sizes 1024x1024x64
Max work group size 1024
Preferred work group size multiple 32
Warp size (NV) 32
Preferred / native vector sizes
char 1 / 1
short 1 / 1
int 1 / 1
long 1 / 1
half 0 / 0 (n/a)
float 1 / 1
double 1 / 1 (cl_khr_fp64)
Half-precision Floating-point support (n/a)
Single-precision Floating-point support (core)
Denormals Yes
Infinity and NANs Yes
Round to nearest Yes
Round to zero Yes
Round to infinity Yes
IEEE754-2008 fused multiply-add Yes
Support is emulated in software No
Correctly-rounded divide and sqrt operations Yes
Double-precision Floating-point support (cl_khr_fp64)
Denormals Yes
Infinity and NANs Yes
Round to nearest Yes
Round to zero Yes
Round to infinity Yes
IEEE754-2008 fused multiply-add Yes
Support is emulated in software No
Address bits 64, Little-Endian
Global memory size 11720130560 (10.92GiB)
Error Correction support No
Max memory allocation 2930032640 (2.729GiB)
Unified memory for Host and Device No
Integrated memory (NV) No
Minimum alignment for any data type 128 bytes
Alignment of base address 4096 bits (512 bytes)
Global Memory cache type Read/Write
Global Memory cache size 458752 (448KiB)
Global Memory cache line size 128 bytes
Image support Yes
Max number of samplers per kernel 32
Max size for 1D images from buffer 134217728 pixels
Max 1D or 2D image array size 2048 images
Max 2D image size 16384x32768 pixels
Max 3D image size 16384x16384x16384 pixels
Max number of read image args 256
Max number of write image args 16
Local memory type Local
Local memory size 49152 (48KiB)
Registers per block (NV) 65536
Max number of constant args 9
Max constant buffer size 65536 (64KiB)
Max size of kernel argument 4352 (4.25KiB)
Queue properties
Out-of-order execution Yes
Profiling Yes
Prefer user sync for interop No
Profiling timer resolution 1000ns
Execution capabilities
Run OpenCL kernels Yes
Run native kernels No
Kernel execution timeout (NV) Yes
Concurrent copy and kernel execution (NV) Yes
Number of async copy engines 2
printf() buffer size 1048576 (1024KiB)
#define N 70 // N > index, which is the total number of literals
#define BASE 4294967296UL
//! Represents the state of a particular generator
typedef struct{ uint x; uint c; } mwc64x_state_t;
enum{ MWC64X_A = 4294883355U };
enum{ MWC64X_M = 18446383549859758079UL };
void MWC64X_Step(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint X=s->x, C=s->c;
uint Xn=MWC64X_A*X+C;
uint carry=(uint)(Xn<C); // The (Xn<C) will be zero or one for scalar
uint Cn=mad_hi(MWC64X_A,X,carry);
s->x=Xn;
s->c=Cn;
}
//! Return a 32-bit integer in the range [0..2^32)
uint MWC64X_NextUint(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint res=s->x ^ s->c;
MWC64X_Step(s);
return res;
}
__kernel void setInfluence(const int literals, const int size, const int dim1_size, __global int* lambdas, __global float* lambdap, __global int* dim2_size, __global float* influence){
int flag=get_global_id(0);
int sum=0;
int count=10000;
int assignment[N];
//or try to get newlambda like original version does
if(flag < literals){
mwc64x_state_t rng;
for(int i=0; i<count; i++){
for(int j=0; j<size; j++){
uint randint=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
float rand=randint*1.0/BASE;
//if(flag==0)
// printf("randint=%u",randint);
if(lambdap[j]<rand)
assignment[lambdas[j]]=0;
else
assignment[lambdas[j]]=1;
}
//the true case
assignment[flag]=1;
int valuet=0;
int index=0;
for(int m=0; m<dim1_size; m++){
int valueMono=1;
for(int n=0; n<dim2_size[m]; n++){
if(assignment[lambdas[index+n]]==0){
valueMono=0;
index+=dim2_size[m];
break;
}
}
if(valueMono==1){
valuet=1;
break;
}
}
//the false case
assignment[flag]=0;
int valuef=0;
index=0;
for(int m=0; m<dim1_size; m++){
int valueMono=1;
for(int n=0; n<dim2_size[m]; n++){
if(assignment[lambdas[index+n]]==0){
valueMono=0;
index+=dim2_size[m];
break;
}
}
if(valueMono==1){
valuef=1;
break;
}
}
sum += valuet-valuef;
}
influence[flag] = 1.0*sum/count;
printf("sum%d:%d\t", flag, sum);
}
}
运行在 GPU 上运行代码时可能会出现什么问题？是 MWC64X 吗？根据其作者的说法，它可以在 NVIDIA GPU 上表现良好。如果是这样，我该如何解决？如果不是，可能是什么问题？
伪随机数的所有用例都是真实-[PARALLEL]计算平台（不是语言，平台）中的下一级挑战。
要么，
有一些随机源，这让我们陷入了一次大规模的麻烦-并行请求将以真正 [PARALLEL] 的方式得到公平处理（在这里，硬件资源可能会有所帮助，但代价是无法在同一平台上重现相同的行为 "outside"（并且时刻，如果这样的源不是具有某些种子注入功能的软件操作，则可能会设置 "just"-伪随机算法，该算法创建一个纯 [SERIAL] 序列 -产生了"just"-伪随机数 ) )
或者，
有一些"shared"-生成器的伪随机数，享受更高级别的系统级熵（这有利于产生 "quality" 的伪随机性）但以纯串行依赖为代价（不可能并行执行，串行序列得到一个服务一个接一个地按顺序进行）并且可重复 运行 的机会几乎为零（可重复科学的必要条件）提供可重复的相同序列，这是测试和方法验证案例所需的。
继续：
代码可能会使用工作项-"private"伪随机生成函数（为了两者[=47，隐私是必须的=] 并行代码执行和生成这些伪随机数的相互独立性（非干预过程）），但每个实例都必须 a) 独立初始化，以便提供可在并行化代码中实现的预期随机性水平 -运行s 和 b) 任何 此类初始化应以可重复再现的方式执行方式，为了运行在不同的时间进行测试，经常使用不同的OpenCL目标计算平台。
对于 __kernel-s，不依赖于特定硬件的随机源，满足条件 a && b 就足以接收可重复再现的（相同）测试 "in vitro" 的结果，从而提供在通用生产级用例代码期间生成结果的合理随机方法-运行s "in vivo".
net-运行 次（上面的基准测试）的比较似乎表明 Amdahl's law add-on overhead costs 加上工作原子性的尾端效应最终决定了 net-运行-time 在 XEON 上比 GPU 快 ~ 3.6x：
index1 = 17
size = 51
dim1_size = 6
sum0: 4781 influence0: 0.478100
sum2: 4781 influence2: 0.478100
sum6: 0 influence6: 0.000000
sum10: 0 influence10: 0.000000
sum12: 0 influence12: 0.000000
sum7: 0 influence7: 0.000000
sum4: 5962 influence4: 0.596200
sum8: 7971 influence8: 0.797100
sum1: 4781 influence1: 0.478100
sum3: 4781 influence3: 0.478100
sum13: 0 influence13: 0.000000
sum11: 1261 influence11: 0.126100
sum9: 0 influence9: 0.000000
sum14: 0 influence14: 0.000000
sum5: 0 influence5: 0.000000
sum15: 0 influence15: 0.000000
sum16: 0 influence16: 0.000000
Parallel influence running time: 0.054391 seconds on XEON E5-2630L v3 @ 1.80GHz using OpenCL
|....
index1 = 17 |....
size = 51 |....
dim1_size = 6 |....
sum0: 10000 |....
sum1: 10000 |....
sum2: 10000 |....
sum3: 10000 |....
sum4: 10000 |....
sum5: 0 |....
sum6: 0 |....
sum7: 0 |....
sum8: 10000 |....
sum9: 0 |....
sum10: 0 |....
sum11: 0 |....
sum12: 0 |....
sum13: 0 |....
sum14: 0 |....
sum15: 0 |....
sum16: 0 |....
Parallel influence running time: 0.193581 seconds on GeForce GTX 1080 Ti using OpenCL
（这开始是评论，事实证明这是问题的根源，所以我把它变成了答案。）
您没有在读取 mwc64x_state_t rng; 变量之前对其进行初始化，因此任何结果都将是未定义的：
mwc64x_state_t rng;
for(int i=0; i<count; i++){
for(int j=0; j<size; j++){
uint randint=MWC64X_NextUint(&rng);
其中 MWC64X_NextUint() 在更新之前立即从 rng 状态读取：
uint MWC64X_NextUint(mwc64x_state_t *s)
{
uint res=s->x ^ s->c;
请注意，您可能希望为每个工作项设置不同的 RNG 种子，否则您会在结果中得到令人讨厌的相关伪影。