Hello World on the GPU (2019)
acko.net
acko.net
I think some pieces of libc++ work but don't know of any testing or documentation effort to track what parts, nor of any explicit handling in the source tree.
https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/index....
Existing restrictions,
https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/index....
By "run C on the GPU" I'm thinking of taking programs and compiling them for the GPU. The lua interpreter, sqlite, stuff like that. I'm personally interested in running llvm on one. Not taking existing code, deleting almost all uses of libc or libc++ from it, then strategically annotating it with host/device/global noise and partitioning it into host and target programs with explicit data transfer.
That is, I don't consider "you can port it to cuda with some modern C++ syntax" to be "you can run C++", what with them being different languages and all. So it doesn't look like Nvidia have beaten us to shipping this yet.
Thank you for the reference.
Edit: a better link might be https://nvidia.github.io/libcudacxx/standard_api.html which shows an effort to port libc++, but it's early days for it. No STL data structures in there.
Libc on nvptx or amdgpu is a bunch of userspace code over syscall, which is a function that takes eight integers per lane on the GPU. That "syscall" copies those integers to the x64/host/other architecture. You'll find it in a header called rpc.h, the same code compiled on host or GPU. Sometime later a thread on the host reads those integers, does whatever they asked for (e.g. call the host syscall on the next six integers), possibly copies values back.
Puts probably copies the string to the host 7*8 bytes at a time, reassembles it on the host, then passes it to the host implementation of puts. We should be able to kill the copy on some architectures. Some other functions run wholly on the GPU, e.g. sprintf shouldn't talk to the host, but fprintf will need to.
The GPU libc is fun from a design perspective because it can run code on either side of that communication channel as we see fit. E.g. printf floating point handling seems prone to large numbers of registers needed on the GPU at the moment so we may move some work to the host to make the register usage better (higher occupancy).
That GPU libc is mostly intended to bring things like fopen to openmp or cuda, but it turns out GPUs are totally usable as bare metal embedded targets. You can read/write to "host" memory, on that and a thread running on the host you can implement a syscall equivalent (e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3458744.3473357), and once you have syscall the doors are wide open. I particularly like mmap from GPU kernels.
LLVM libc is picking up capability over time, implemented similarly to the non-gpu architectures. The same tests run on x64 or the GPU, printing to stdout as they go. Hopefully standing up libc++ on top will work smoothly. It's encouraging that I sometimes struggle to remember whether it's currently running on the host or the GPU.
The datastructure that libc uses to have x64 call a function on amdgpu, or to have amdgpu call a function on x64, is mostly a blob of shared memory and careful atomic operations. That was originally general purpose and lived on a prototypey GitHub. Its currently specialised to libc. It should end up in an under-debate llvm/offload project which will make it easily reusable again.
This isn't quite decoupled from vendor stuff. The GPU driver needs to be running in the kernel somewhere. On nvptx, we make a couple of calls into libcuda to launch main(). On amdgpu, it's a couple of calls into libhsa. I did have an opencl loader implementation as well but that has probably rotted, intel seems to be on that stack but isn't in llvm upstream.
A few GPU projects have noticed that implementing a cuda layer and a spirv layer and a hsa or hip layer and whatever others is quite annoying. Possibly all GPU projects have noticed that. We may get an llvm/offload library that successfully abstracts over those which would let people allocate memory, launch kernels, use arbitrary libc stuff and so forth running against that library.
That's all from the compute perspective. It's possible I should look up what sending numbers over HDMI actually is. I believe the GPU is happy interleaving compute and graphics kernels and suspect they're very similar things in the implementation.
https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-c-std/index.html
"C++ Standard Parallelism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwrgLH5yAlM
Or if you prefer more vendor neutral,
https://registry.khronos.org/SYCL/specs/sycl-2020/html/sycl-...
Currently with C++17 support.
It took almost 20 years to move from GPU Assembly (DX 9 timeframe), shading languages, to regular C, C++, Fortran and Python JITs.
There are some efforts with Java, .NET, Julia, Haskell, Chapel, Futhark, however still trailing behind the big four.
Currently in terms of ecosystem, tooling and libraries, as far as I am aware, Rust is trailing those, and not yet being a presence on HPC/Graphics (Eurographics, SIGGRAPH) conferences.
I 100% agree. Although I have a keen interest in Rust I can’t see it offering any unique value to the GPGPU or HPC space. Meanwhile C++ is gaining all sorts of support for HPC. For instance the parallel stl algorithms, mdspan, std::simd, std::blas, executors (eventually), etc. Not to mention all of the development work happening outside of the ISO standard, e.g. CUDA/ROCm(HIP)/OpenACC/OpenCL/OpenMP/SYCL/Kokkos/RAJA and who knows what else.
C++ is going to be sitting tight in compute for a long time to come.
However industry standards matter more.
In any case, that means those languages are much better positioned than Rust in such ecosystem.
Spectacular vibe! Combined with the fullscreen animation is almost reminiscent of the demo-scene. I enjoyed the rest of the actual web page much more after that.
I salute thee whoever made this. Much appreciated!
for y in 0..height {
for x in 0..width {
// Get target position
let tx = x + offset;
let ty = y;
A Pixel-shader is all sorts of complications in practice that deserves at least a few days of studying the rendering pipeline to understand. But the tl;dr is that a pixel-shader launches a thread (erm... a SIMD-lane? A... work-item? A shader?) per pixel, and then the device drivers do some magic to group them together.
Like, in the raw hardware, pixel0-0 is going to be rendered at the same time as pixel0-1, pixel0-2, etc. etc. And the values inside of this "for loop" are the code that runs it all.
Sure its SIMD and all kinds of complicated to fully describe what's going on here. But the bulk of GPU-programming (or at least, for pixel shaders), is recognizing the one-thread-per-pixel (erm, SIMD-lane per pixel) approach.
------------------
Anyway, I think this post is... GPU-enough. I'm not sure if this truly executes on a GPU given how the code was written. But I'd give it my stamp of approval as far as "Describing code as if it were being done on a GPU", even if they're cheating for simplicity in many spots.
The #1 most important part is that the "rasterize" routine is written in the embarrassingly parallel mindset. Every pixel "could" in theory, be processed in parallel. (Notice that no pixels have race-conditions or locks, or sequencing needed with each other).
And the #2 part is having the "sequential" CPU-code logically and seamlessly communicate with the "embarrassingly parallel" rasterize routine in a simple, logical, and readable manner. And this post absolutely accomplishes that.
Its harder to write this cleanly than it looks. But having someone show you, as per this post, how it is done helps with the learning process.
Pixel shaders in WebGPU / wgpu are written in WGSL. The above 2-dimensional for-loop is _NOT_ a proper pixel shader (but it is written in a "Pixel Shader style", very familiar to any GPU programmer).
Upon closer inspection, the glyphs are each rendered onto the framebuffer sequentially... one-at-a-time. IE: NOT in an embarrassingly parallel manner. So the joke is starting to fall apart as you look closely.
But those kinds of details don't matter. The post is written well enough to be a good joke but no "better" than needed. (EDIT: It was written well enough to trick me in my first review of the article. But on 2nd and 3rd inspection, I'm noticing the problems, and its all in good fun to see the post degenerate into obvious satire by the end).
Honestly it sounds like AI. This is a website in the shape/memory of a blogpost, not an actual blogpost.
"...An easy tutorial in Rust"
A short visit to the authors blog clearly shows they know what they talk about.
It’s technically possible to translate the code into compute shader/CUDA/OpenCL/etc., but that gonna be slow and hard to do, due to concurrency issues. You can’t just load/blend/store without a guarantee other threads won’t try to concurrently modify the same output pixel.
For immediate mode renderers (IE desktop cards), VK_EXT_fragment_shader_interlock seems available to correct those "concurrency" issues. DX12 ROVs seem to expose similar abilities. Though performance may be hit more than tiling architectures.
So you can certainly read-modify-write framebuffer values in pixel shaders using current hardware, which is what is needed for a fully shader-driven blending step.
57 created objects later
"Hm. Damn"
Well .. there is a reason it is usually "hello triangle" on GPU tutorials. Spoiler alert, GPUs ain't easy.
Nowadays using "legacy" APIs is relatively easy, however it requires a background knowledge on how GL became GL 4.6, DX became DX 11 and so.
Modern APIs are super low level, they are designed as GPU APIs for driver writers basically. Since they cut the fat legacy API drivers used to take care for the applications, now everyone has to deal with such complexity directly, or make use of a middleware engine instead.
It's pretty much what OpenGL "drivers" were doing past the introduction of hardware shaders anyway - acting as a pretty thick middleware translating that to low-level commands, only having the user API being locked into a design from decades ago.
And considering how hard it was to get Khronos to eventually agree on vulkan in the first place (that effectively being a drop from AMD in "Mantle" then only tweaked by the committee), I'm not surprised they haven't standardized a higher-level API. So third party middleware it is.
I guess the problem is the expectation exactly by those that feel GL and DX 11 are done, and they need to directly use their replacements.
You don't really have to though, you can still use the higher-level older graphics APIs. It wouldn't have made much sense for Vulkan to include a high-level graphics API as well, as those APIs already exist and have mature ecosystems.
Similarly, in Windows land, you aren't forced to use D3D12, you can still use D3D11 or even D3D9.
Naturally that leads to some uncomfort.
glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES);
glVertex3f( 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f);
glVertex3f(-1.0f,-1.0f, 0.0f);
glVertex3f( 1.0f,-1.0f, 0.0f);
And there you go you got a triangle.
It's great for beginners because they can see the results very fast and once they want to start having crazy graphical effects or need more performance you can move to shaders.
So it's not all that surprising that the one is easier than the other, in a way it is surprising that the other can be done at all. But as CPUs and GPUs converge it's quite possible that NV or another manufacturer eventually slips enough general purpose capacity onto their cards that they function as completely separate systems. And then 'Hello world' will be trivial.