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

2·7·19 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

10101002 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

216810 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

25338 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

3·457 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 16:57:46 UTC 2021 up 10 days, 11:26, 0 users, load averages: 1.98, 2.26, 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.