skip to main content

Title: AMD GPUs as an Alternative to NVIDIA for Supporting Real-Time Workloads
Graphics processing units (GPUs) manufactured by NVIDIA continue to dominate many fields of research, including real-time GPU-management. NVIDIA’s status as a key enabling technology for deep learning and image processing makes this unsurprising, especially when combined with the company’s push into embedded, safety-critical domains like autonomous driving. NVIDIA’s primary competitor, AMD, has received comparatively little attention, due in part to few embedded offerings and a lack of support from popular deep-learning toolkits. Recently, however, AMD’s ROCm (Radeon Open Compute) software platform was made available to address at least the second of these two issues, but is ROCm worth the attention of safety-critical software developers? In order to answer this question, this paper explores the features and pitfalls of AMD GPUs, focusing on contrasting details with NVIDIA’s GPU hardware and software. We argue that an open software stack such as ROCm may be able to provide much-needed flexibility and reproducibility in the context of real-time GPU research, where new algorithmic or analysis techniques should typically remain agnostic to the underlying GPU architecture. In support of this claim, we summarize how closed-source platforms have obstructed prior research using NVIDIA GPUs, and then demonstrate that AMD may be a viable alternative by modifying more » components of the ROCm software stack to implement spatial partitioning. Finally, we present a case study using the PyTorch deep-learning framework that demonstrates the impact such modifications can have on complex real-world software. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1717589 1837337
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10183929
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 32nd Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
10:1-10:23
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Self-driving systems execute an ensemble of different self-driving workloads on embedded systems in an end-to-end manner, subject to functional and performance requirements. To enable exploration, optimization, and end-to-end evaluation on different embedded platforms, system designers critically need a benchmark suite that enables flexible and seamless configuration of self-driving scenarios, which realistically reflects real-world self-driving workloads’ unique characteristics. Existing CPU and GPU embedded benchmark suites typically (1) consider isolated applications, (2) are not sensor-driven, and (3) are unable to support emerging self-driving applications that simultaneously utilize CPUs and GPUs with stringent timing requirements. On the other hand, full-system self-driving simulators (e.g., AUTOWARE, APOLLO) focus on functional simulation, but lack the ability to evaluate the self-driving software stack on various embedded platforms. To address design needs, we present Chauffeur, the first open-source end-to-end benchmark suite for self-driving vehicles with configurable representative workloads. Chauffeur is easy to configure and run, enabling researchers to evaluate different platform configurations and explore alternative instantiations of the self-driving software pipeline. Chauffeur runs on diverse emerging platforms and exploits heterogeneous onboard resources. Our initial characterization of Chauffeur on different embedded platforms – NVIDIA Jetson TX2 and Drive PX2 – enables comparative evaluation of these GPU platforms in executingmore »an end-to-end self-driving computational pipeline to assess the end-to-end response times on these emerging embedded platforms while also creating opportunities to create application gangs for better response times. Chauffeur enables researchers to benchmark representative self-driving workloads and flexibly compose them for different self-driving scenarios to explore end-to-end tradeoffs between design constraints, power budget, real-time performance requirements, and accuracy of applications.« less
  2. Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less
  3. GPUs are a key enabler of the revolution in machine learning and high-performance computing, functioning as de facto co-processors to accelerate large-scale computation. As the programming stack and tool support have matured, GPUs have also become accessible to programmers, who may lack detailed knowledge of the underlying architecture and fail to fully leverage the GPU’s computation power. GEVO (Gpu optimization using EVOlutionary computation) is a tool for automatically discovering optimization opportunities and tuning the performance of GPU kernels in the LLVM representation. GEVO uses population-based search to find edits to GPU code compiled to LLVM-IR and improves performance on desired criteria while retaining required functionality. We demonstrate that GEVO improves the execution time of general-purpose GPU programs and machine learning (ML) models on NVIDIA Tesla P100. For the Rodinia benchmarks, GEVO improves GPU kernel runtime performance by an average of 49.48% and by as much as 412% over the fully compiler-optimized baseline. If kernel output accuracy is relaxed to tolerate up to 1% error, GEVO can find kernel variants that outperform the baseline by an average of 51.08%. For the ML workloads, GEVO achieves kernel performance improvement for SVM on the MNIST handwriting recognition (3.24×) and the a9a income predictionmore »(2.93×) datasets with no loss of model accuracy. GEVO achieves 1.79× kernel performance improvement on image classification using ResNet18/CIFAR-10, with less than 1% model accuracy reduction.« less
  4. Due to the recent announcement of the Frontier supercomputer, many scientific application developers are working to make their applications compatible with AMD (CPU-GPU) architectures, which means moving away from the traditional CPU and NVIDIA-GPU systems. Due to the current limitations of profiling tools for AMD GPUs, this shift leaves a void in how to measure application performance on AMD GPUs. In this article, we design an instruction roofline model for AMD GPUs using AMD’s ROCProfiler and a benchmarking tool, BabelStream (the HIP implementation), as a way to measure an application’s performance in instructions and memory transactions on new AMD hardware. Specifically, we create instruction roofline models for a case study scientific application, PIConGPU, an open source particle-in-cell simulations application used for plasma and laser-plasma physics on the NVIDIA V100, AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, and AMD Instinct MI100 GPUs. When looking at the performance of multiple kernels of interest in PIConGPU we find that although the AMD MI100 GPU achieves a similar, or better, execution time compared to the NVIDIA V100 GPU, profiling tool differences make comparing performance of these two architectures hard. When looking at execution time, GIPS, and instruction intensity, the AMD MI60 achieves the worst performance out ofmore »the three GPUs used in this work.« less
  5. Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)
    The goal of this work was to design a low-cost computing facility that can support the development of an open source digital pathology corpus containing 1M images [1]. A single image from a clinical-grade digital pathology scanner can range in size from hundreds of megabytes to five gigabytes. A 1M image database requires over a petabyte (PB) of disk space. To do meaningful work in this problem space requires a significant allocation of computing resources. The improvements and expansions to our HPC (highperformance computing) cluster, known as Neuronix [2], required to support working with digital pathology fall into two broad categories: computation and storage. To handle the increased computational burden and increase job throughput, we are using Slurm [3] as our scheduler and resource manager. For storage, we have designed and implemented a multi-layer filesystem architecture to distribute a filesystem across multiple machines. These enhancements, which are entirely based on open source software, have extended the capabilities of our cluster and increased its cost-effectiveness. Slurm has numerous features that allow it to generalize to a number of different scenarios. Among the most notable is its support for GPU (graphics processing unit) scheduling. GPUs can offer a tremendous performance increase inmore »machine learning applications [4] and Slurm’s built-in mechanisms for handling them was a key factor in making this choice. Slurm has a general resource (GRES) mechanism that can be used to configure and enable support for resources beyond the ones provided by the traditional HPC scheduler (e.g. memory, wall-clock time), and GPUs are among the GRES types that can be supported by Slurm [5]. In addition to being able to track resources, Slurm does strict enforcement of resource allocation. This becomes very important as the computational demands of the jobs increase, so that they have all the resources they need, and that they don’t take resources from other jobs. It is a common practice among GPU-enabled frameworks to query the CUDA runtime library/drivers and iterate over the list of GPUs, attempting to establish a context on all of them. Slurm is able to affect the hardware discovery process of these jobs, which enables a number of these jobs to run alongside each other, even if the GPUs are in exclusive-process mode. To store large quantities of digital pathology slides, we developed a robust, extensible distributed storage solution. We utilized a number of open source tools to create a single filesystem, which can be mounted by any machine on the network. At the lowest layer of abstraction are the hard drives, which were split into 4 60-disk chassis, using 8TB drives. To support these disks, we have two server units, each equipped with Intel Xeon CPUs and 128GB of RAM. At the filesystem level, we have implemented a multi-layer solution that: (1) connects the disks together into a single filesystem/mountpoint using the ZFS (Zettabyte File System) [6], and (2) connects filesystems on multiple machines together to form a single mountpoint using Gluster [7]. ZFS, initially developed by Sun Microsystems, provides disk-level awareness and a filesystem which takes advantage of that awareness to provide fault tolerance. At the filesystem level, ZFS protects against data corruption and the infamous RAID write-hole bug by implementing a journaling scheme (the ZFS intent log, or ZIL) and copy-on-write functionality. Each machine (1 controller + 2 disk chassis) has its own separate ZFS filesystem. Gluster, essentially a meta-filesystem, takes each of these, and provides the means to connect them together over the network and using distributed (similar to RAID 0 but without striping individual files), and mirrored (similar to RAID 1) configurations [8]. By implementing these improvements, it has been possible to expand the storage and computational power of the Neuronix cluster arbitrarily to support the most computationally-intensive endeavors by scaling horizontally. We have greatly improved the scalability of the cluster while maintaining its excellent price/performance ratio [1].« less