mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing > GpuOwl

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-07-19, 10:10   #177
0PolarBearsHere
 
0PolarBearsHere's Avatar
 
Oct 2015

1000010102 Posts
Default

Win 8.1, i7-3930K, GTX1080, gpuowl 0.5
Doing a self-test I got an error -9999, and then the exe crashed.
Quote:
LL FFT 4096K (1024*2048*2) of 77002949 (18.36 bits/word) offset 2000 iteration 0
error -9999
Any ideas? I couldn't find that error in this thread using a quick search.

Last fiddled with by 0PolarBearsHere on 2017-07-19 at 10:17
0PolarBearsHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-07-19, 11:09   #178
thyw
 
Feb 2016
! North_America

22×3×7 Posts
Default

I'm not sure about this, but after looking at the sourcecode on github in
clwrap.h line #11-12
Code:
#define CHECK(err) { int e = err; if (e != CL_SUCCESS) { fprintf(stderr, "error %d\n", e); assert(false); }}
#define CHECK2(err, mes) { int e = err; if (e != CL_SUCCESS) { fprintf(stderr, "error %d (%s)\n", e, mes); assert(false); }}
these must the lines writing out the warning. (searched all the sources searching for printing out "error ..."
about CL_SUCCESS https://www.khronos.org/registry/Ope...EventInfo.html, so -9999 is an error code/value. Opencl error.

https://streamhpc.com/blog/2013-04-2...l-error-codes/
Code:
Errors thrown by Vendors
Code     Vendor    Function(s)    Description
-9999    NVidia    clEnqueueNDRangeKernel    Illegal read or write to a buffer

Last fiddled with by thyw on 2017-07-19 at 11:17
thyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-16, 20:05   #179
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11×47 Posts
Post

Vega Timings, had to use legacy kernels or all 0xfffff... residues. This was done on a stack known to still be pretty raw and not optimized (rocm: 1.6.127);

(Testing on 77002949)
RX64 Air (1630Mhz, but was down at 1536 quickly due to heat)
ms/iter: 2.048

FE Liquid (1600Mhz) :
ms/iter: 1.898

Similar to Fury at present.

Last fiddled with by airsquirrels on 2017-08-16 at 20:05
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-17, 11:07   #180
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

3·457 Posts
Default

Thank you David for the info. Yes I can repro this now (just got my RX Vega moments ago). The "-2" residue is clearly a problem, I'll investigate.
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-17, 17:45   #181
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11×47 Posts
Default

Updated timings from the Windows driver (Which I'm told is still using the previous closed compiler, while Linux has transitioned to LLVM/rocm - apparently regrettably)

RX64 Air:
ms/iter: 1.639


FE: Unknown, won't recognize with the same same driver as RX.

This is with stock clocks. If I use the "stable" 1000Mhz memory clocks that pass self test I get 1.600

Both kernels work as expected in Windows, so likely an llvm regression.

Last fiddled with by airsquirrels on 2017-08-17 at 17:47
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-21, 00:31   #182
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

3×457 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airsquirrels View Post
Updated timings from the Windows driver (Which I'm told is still using the previous closed compiler, while Linux has transitioned to LLVM/rocm - apparently regrettably)

RX64 Air:
ms/iter: 1.639


FE: Unknown, won't recognize with the same same driver as RX.

This is with stock clocks. If I use the "stable" 1000Mhz memory clocks that pass self test I get 1.600

Both kernels work as expected in Windows, so likely an llvm regression.
I've been investigating this for a while now on Linux. I'm mystified by the behavior I observe. Clearly is something related to memory/cache and timing. But I can't track this down to a cause in my code; frustrating.
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-21, 01:30   #183
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11×47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preda View Post
I've been investigating this for a while now on Linux. I'm mystified by the behavior I observe. Clearly is something related to memory/cache and timing. But I can't track this down to a cause in my code; frustrating.
I saw your post over on ROCm. I’ve seen numerous regressions since this switch to llvm from the older proprietary compiler. In my opinion switching amdgpu-pro to ROCm was premature and I’m disappointed that they essentially moved a beta compiler to the only option in their production driver. Clearly they have the compiler code for Vega - windows uses it.
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-28, 02:06   #184
kracker
 
kracker's Avatar
 
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA

23·271 Posts
Default

Windows binary from the latest commit(676be1c).
NOTE: Untested!
Attached Files
File Type: zip gpuowl-v1.0-676be1c.zip (128.3 KB, 84 views)
kracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-28, 02:59   #185
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

3×457 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kracker View Post
Windows binary from the latest commit(676be1c).
NOTE: Untested!
I would hold on a bit before using 1.0, it's still work in progress and I'd like to do more testing myself. Also it's not backwards compatible with savefiles.

PS: I'll make a post with a summary of the changes when it's good to go.

Last fiddled with by preda on 2017-08-28 at 03:01
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-30, 05:45   #186
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

25338 Posts
Default gpuOwl 1.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by preda View Post
I'll make a post with a summary of the changes when it's good to go.
As promised, here's the note with recent changes to gpuOwl:

gpuOwl 1.0 ( https://github.com/preda/gpuowl )

The "1.0" is not an indication of stability or bug-free, but only of radical changes from the previous version (0.6) -- so expect the usual amount of bugs (or more) and rough edges.

gpuOwl does not implement LL (Lucas-Lehmer primality test) anymore. Instead, it does the "PRP-3" probable prime test, which is:

For M = 2^p-1, compute R := 3^(p-1) mod M.
If R == -3 (mod M), then M is a probable prime. In this situation, an LL test should be run to verify that the *probable* prime is actually prime.

(in practice though, somebody lucky to find a PRP-3 probable mersenne prime should probably simply claim a prime, and the community would do the required LL validation).

The change to PRP-3 is motivated by a nice self-validating side computation described by Robert Gerbicz http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...1&postcount=88 .

This affords confidence in the correctness of the result, with small additional cost.

Other main changes:
- the residue computed is not an LL residue anymore. It should not be compared or reported/mixed with LL residues. To facilitate the distinction, the new residue looks different, e.g. "P3-0223c56fae4cfdef6b" (you may notice it's a bit longer too, this is because the last 2 hex-digits are check-digits).

- while the end-residue for an LL prime is 0, the end-residue for this PRP-3 "probable prime" is "-3", which shows up as 0xfffffffffffffffc. Not as nice as 0, I agree :). E.g. P3-fffffffffffffffc0d with the checkdigits.

- all LL error protections have been removed: loop detection, Jacobi-check, rounding-error, etc. (as the new check is stronger).

1.0 looks OK to me for general use now. Looking for bug reports & feedback.

PS: on RX Vega, use "-legacy" flag.
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-08-30, 05:52   #187
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

3·457 Posts
Default

gpuOwl 1.0 does not load savefiles from previous versions. (PRP does not load/continue LL).
So please keep with the LL version until the ongoing exponent is done, then switch and start from the beginning of a new exponent.
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
mfakto: an OpenCL program for Mersenne prefactoring Bdot GPU Computing 1676 2021-06-30 21:23
GPUOWL AMD Windows OpenCL issues xx005fs GpuOwl 0 2019-07-26 21:37
Testing an expression for primality 1260 Software 17 2015-08-28 01:35
Testing Mersenne cofactors for primality? CRGreathouse Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 18 2013-06-08 19:12
Primality-testing program with multiple types of moduli (PFGW-related) Unregistered Information & Answers 4 2006-10-04 22:38

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:57.


Mon Aug 2 16:57:51 UTC 2021 up 10 days, 11:26, 0 users, load averages: 1.98, 2.25, 2.19

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.