mersenneforum.org mfakto: an OpenCL program for Mersenne prefactoring
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-09-14, 01:40 #122 KingKurly     Sep 2010 Annapolis, MD, USA BD16 Posts I was able to test the Linux build as a success: Code: Selftest statistics number of tests 3332 successfull tests 3332 selftest PASSED! real 43m31.235s user 9m22.360s sys 31m10.151s I did find it a bit strange that test cases 1552 through 1557 had no output to the terminal, but I will transition to using 0.08 now and I will begin submitting results to PrimeNet as they become available. Do we need to redo "no factor" work that was done under 0.07 or can those be submitted? I have not downloaded the source to check a diff to see if it is reasonable thing to do.
2011-09-14, 08:53   #123
Bdot

Nov 2010
Germany

25516 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by KingKurly I was able to test the Linux build as a success: Code: selftest PASSED!
Great to see!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by KingKurly I did find it a bit strange that test cases 1552 through 1557 had no output to the terminal, but I will transition to using 0.08 now and I will begin submitting results to PrimeNet as they become available.
The reason is, that test cases 1552 to 1557 are for factors of more than 91 bits. I had removed the 95-bit kernel because it was so terribly slow that you would not want to use it anyway. Therefore, mfakto currently only supports TF up to 91 bits.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by KingKurly Do we need to redo "no factor" work that was done under 0.07 or can those be submitted? I have not downloaded the source to check a diff to see if it is reasonable thing to do.
In version 0.07, the single-vectored MUL24 kernel did not work with Catalyst 11.8. In your self-compiled version you removed that kernel from the selftest, but not from the program. If you never changed the mfakto.ini-Parameter VectorSize (i.e. if you left it at 4), then that faulty kernel has not been used and you can submit the previous results without re-running them.

2011-09-14, 14:50   #124
KingKurly

Sep 2010
Annapolis, MD, USA

33×7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bdot In version 0.07, the single-vectored MUL24 kernel did not work with Catalyst 11.8. In your self-compiled version you removed that kernel from the selftest, but not from the program. If you never changed the mfakto.ini-Parameter VectorSize (i.e. if you left it at 4), then that faulty kernel has not been used and you can submit the previous results without re-running them.
I have confirmed that the VectorSize never changed from 4. I am submitting the results, "closing the book" on 0.07, and moving to 0.08. Thank you so much!

2011-09-14, 16:03   #125
Bdot

Nov 2010
Germany

3·199 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by KingKurly moving to 0.08. Thank you so much!
Did you already check if mfakto_cl_barrett79 or mfakto_cl_71 are faster on your GPU? I'm really interested to see the two compared on different GPUs. On my HD5770, barrett is about 10% faster ...

2011-09-14, 16:28   #126
Razor_FX_II

Jan 2009

43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bdot Did you already check if mfakto_cl_barrett79 or mfakto_cl_71 are faster on your GPU? I'm really interested to see the two compared on different GPUs. On my HD5770, barrett is about 10% faster ...
Using mfakto-0.08 on my HD4870's and HD4890's mfakto_cl_barrett79 is about 10% faster.
mfakto_cl_barrett79 avg rate: 55M/s
mfakto_cl_71 avg rate: 50M/s

2011-09-14, 17:53   #127
KingKurly

Sep 2010
Annapolis, MD, USA

BD16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bdot Did you already check if mfakto_cl_barrett79 or mfakto_cl_71 are faster on your GPU? I'm really interested to see the two compared on different GPUs. On my HD5770, barrett is about 10% faster ...
I am finding similar results. My HD5450 seems to do about 8.6M/s on the mfakto_cl_71 and about 9.1M/s on the mfakto_cl_barrett79, doing TF on M41774351 from 68 to 69.

 2011-09-14, 23:13 #128 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 32×7×59 Posts Since it appeared to be missing, I've created a stub article on MersenneWiki for mfakto: http://www.mersennewiki.org/index.php/Mfakto But since I don't actually use mfakto, perhaps someone else could fill in and fix all the details in the article.
 2011-09-20, 15:33 #129 DigiK-oz   Jul 2008 308 Posts In the GPUGRID forum : there's a bug in the latest sdk that makes a full use of a cpu-core whenever an opencl app is running. They promised a fix, but still not here in 11.8 maybe in 11.9?? Maybe mfakto suffers from this as well? One of the threads using 100% of one cpu happens to be in the ATI libs....
2011-09-20, 18:23   #130
Bdot

Nov 2010
Germany

3·199 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DigiK-oz In the GPUGRID forum : there's a bug in the latest sdk that makes a full use of a cpu-core whenever an opencl app is running. They promised a fix, but still not here in 11.8 maybe in 11.9?? Maybe mfakto suffers from this as well? One of the threads using 100% of one cpu happens to be in the ATI libs....
They seem to have implemented some kind of busy-wait (futex-based) whenever something needs to be synchronized with the GPU. As this is usually the CPU just waiting for the GPU to complete something, that is a total waste of CPU resources.

However, mfakto is not hit that badly as mfakto passes the prepared factor candidates to the GPU but does not wait for the results immediately. Instead, the next block of factor candidates is prepared on the CPU. Only when the CPU is faster preparing the stuff than the GPU can process it, then mfakto will synchronize with the GPU. And of course at the end of a class.

So yes, mfakto will also consume a full CPU core, but it will do something useful most of that time.

2011-09-20, 18:33   #131
Samoflan

Jan 2010

510 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Razor_FX_II Using mfakto-0.08 on my HD4870's and HD4890's mfakto_cl_barrett79 is about 10% faster. mfakto_cl_barrett79 avg rate: 55M/s mfakto_cl_71 avg rate: 50M/s
I get similar results on my HD4890

mfakto_cl_barrett79 avg rate: 51.9M/s
mfakto_cl_71 avg rate: 48.7M/s

CPU load will almost cap out 2 cores on my Phenom II x4 955

 2011-09-26, 19:14 #132 Bdot     Nov 2010 Germany 3·199 Posts Bug warning I´m sorry to report: yesterday I found a bug, mfakto up to 0.08 does not find the factor for k=3 for M6599953. The reason is an invalid "optimization" that I made over the mfaktc-code. Mfaktc does not have this problem. I have fixed the bug and added a test case for it to the selftests. The mfakto kernel "mfakto_cl_71" (all vector sizes) sometimes calculated a bad modulus when the factor candidate was <248. Smaller FCs (~224) had a higher chance for the error to occur, FCs >248 were always calculated correctly. The problem does not depend on the exponent size. I´m sorry for possibly having wasted effort and resources, but I hope it´s not too many tests that need to be repeated as it´s only about small FCs. I will provide a fixed version within the next few days.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post preda GpuOwl 2760 2022-05-15 00:00 TheJudger GPU Computing 3541 2022-04-21 22:37 msft GPU Computing 433 2019-06-23 21:11 TObject GPU Computing 2 2013-10-12 21:09 Stargate38 Factoring 24 2011-11-03 00:34

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:37.

Wed May 25 18:37:26 UTC 2022 up 41 days, 16:38, 0 users, load averages: 0.99, 1.19, 1.28