![]() |
|
|
#177 | |
|
Oct 2015
2·7·19 Posts |
Win 8.1, i7-3930K, GTX1080, gpuowl 0.5
Doing a self-test I got an error -9999, and then the exe crashed. Quote:
Last fiddled with by 0PolarBearsHere on 2017-07-19 at 10:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#178 |
|
Feb 2016
! North_America
10101002 Posts |
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); }}
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#179 |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
11·47 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#180 |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
3×457 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#181 |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
11·47 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#182 | |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
3·457 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#183 |
|
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio
11×47 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#184 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
216810 Posts |
Windows binary from the latest commit(676be1c).
NOTE: Untested! |
|
|
|
|
|
#185 |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
25338 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#186 | |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
3·457 Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#187 |
|
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
3×457 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
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 |