Most Futhark programmers have probably happened upon the dreaded compiler limitation encountered message, where the compiler simply refuses to compile an otherwise correct program. The compiler will sometimes suggest a workaround, but in most cases it is not easy to understand what went wrong. In this post I will explain why we find it acceptable to distribute a compiler that will refuse to compile valid code, how we hope to eventually fix the situation, and provide hints on writing your code to avoid the compiler restrictions in the first place.
First, let me clarify that we do actually have a compiler that will correctly compile any Futhark program (modulo compiler bugs):
futhark-c, which compiles Futhark to sequential C code. Similarly, we also have a complete interpreter,
futharki. Fundamentally, Futhark is a quite simple language - much simpler than its cousins SML, OCaml, and Haskell - and it is quite straightforward to compile it to any reasonably sensible target, like for example a modern CPU. Unfortunately, the target being “reasonably sensible” is not a valid assumption for
futhark-opencl, which wants to generate efficient code for GPUs. Operations that we take for granted, such as “allocate some memory” or “terminate the program with an error message” are not quite as straightforward in high performance GPU code. To explain why, we will have to look at the basics of the GPU execution model.
In the following, when I write that something is impossible, that might not literally be the case. Really, I mean that it is inefficient in general, which makes it unsuitable for our purposes. There are lots of convenient, flexible and powerful programming languages out there, while Futhark’s only selling point is performance. Hence, it makes no sense for us to make implementation choices that might result in correct execution, but would make the code run slowly.
A typical GPU functions as a co-processor that carries out orders sent to it from a controlling CPU. Execution takes place when the CPU enqueues a GPU function (confusingly called a kernel, but completely unrelated to operating systems) along with how many threads to use. Each thread executes the same sequential code (the body of the kernel function), but each has a distinct thread ID, which can be used to operate on different data or take different control flow decisions. Kernels are transient: they run only long enough to complete their work, then stop, at which point a new kernel can start.
Interaction with the GPU is done through an API that we call from ordinary CPU code, and which then talks to the GPU driver, in practice CUDA for NVIDIA GPUs and OpenCL for the Intel and AMD GPUs. These are mostly equivalent for our purposes, and the programming models are almost identical.
Now let us look at the two most common compiler limitations encountered by Futhark programmers.
A kernel can write only to memory physically residing to the GPU, which is distinct from CPU memory. We have to use the API to allocate enough memory on the GPU to fit both our input and output, and manually copy data between GPU and CPU as necessary. In CUDA, this is done with
cudaMalloc() and in OpenCL with
clCreateBuffer(). This memory is not directly accessible to CPU code, but must be written or read using special API functions (in OpenCL these are for example
clEnqueueWriteBuffer()). Most significantly, we cannot call these memory allocation functions from within kernel code. This means that all memory a kernel needs must be allocated in advance before it starts, which requires that it can be computed in advance.
Consider the following Futhark expression:
map (\x -> let ys = replicate 10 x in ...) xs
For each element
x of the array
xs, we apply an anonymous function that creates an array of
10 copies of
x, then does some other work that we don’t worry more about, and ultimately returns a value. The result is an array of those values that is as big as the
xs array. In general, a
map is executed by launching a kernel with one thread per element of the array (things are more interesting when the
map itself contains more parallelism, but let us leave that for another post).
Each iteration the
map produces an array (
ys). The compiler has to find space for that array in memory. Since the size of the array is the same for each iteration of the array, it can precompute how much memory is needed in total by multiplying with the number of threads. Let us assume each
x requires 4 bytes:
let mem = alloc (10 * length xs * 4) in map (\x -> -- y@m+tid*(length xs)*4 let ys = replicate 10 x in ...) xs
The compiler annotates the variable
ys with the information that it will be located in the memory block
mem, at an offset derived by the thread ID. (In practice, this is not how the compiler will lay out the memory. Instead,
ys arrays for different threads will be interleaved in memory to ensure coalesced memory accesses.) Note that we do no need to know the exact size of
ys at compile-time; it is enough that we have a symbolic value that is invariant to the values of the array
Many programs have different array values for each iteration of a
map, but the same array sizes, so this works quite well in practice. However, consider this program:
map (\x -> let ys = replicate (1+x) 0 in ...) xs
Each thread creates an array of
1+x elements, but each thread may have a different value for
x! This means there is no closed form expression we can use to determine the memory requirements. When the Futhark compiler cannot predict the memory requirements of a kernel, it will refuse to compile the program and crash with an error message.
For this specific example, though, that is not what happens. The Futhark compiler has a limited ability to estimate memory usage by extracting a size-slice of the
map function that computes the sizes of any intermediate arrays used. In the above case, this is just the value
x. This is then used to determine, for each intermediate array, its maximum size for any thread, and this is then used to allocate a block of memory that is guaranteed to be large enough:
let x_bound = i32.maximum (map (\x -> 1+x) xs) let mem = alloc (10 * x_bound * 4) in map (\x -> -- y@m+tid*x_bound*4 let ys = replicate (1+x) 0 in ...) xs
Of course, the risk here is that we end up grossly over-allocating in the case that one
x is much larger than the others. Another approach would use a
scan to compute precisely how much memory is needed for each thread. The problem with that approach is that it makes it harder to interleave the per-thread chunks in memory (because they do not have the same size), which is in practice needed for good performance. It’s a difficult trade-off, and this part of the compiler is still quite experimental. Another problem is that it may not always be easy or possible to extract a size-slice, in particular if the
map contains a sequential loop that contains intermediate arrays of loop-variant sizes.
The best way to avoid this limitation is to avoid variantly-sized arrays inside parallel operations. This also involves avoiding arrays that you know will always have an invariant size, but where the compiler cannot statically figure it out (this occurs most often when using concatenation unnecessarily). For example, consider this program:
let main (n: i32): i32 = map (\i -> let a = 0..<i let b = 0..<n-i in a ++ b) (0..<n)
0..<i constructs an array of the elements from
i (not exclusive). This specific program will actually compile due to the size slicing trick mentioned above, but in its absence we could rewrite it as follows, to make the sizes completely explicit to the compiler:
let main(n: i32): i32 = let scratch = 0..<n in map (\i -> let res = 0..<n let res[i:n] = scratch[0:n-i] in res) (0..<n)
This exploits the fact that the compiler does not generate allocations for array slices or in-place updates. The only allocation is of the initial
scratch, the size of which can be computed before entering the
The allocation issue are rooted deeply in performance concerns (allocation is an expensive notion), reflected in the GPU hardware architecture, awkward to work around, and require both trickery and subtlety in the compiler to work around. The other issue I will talk about has none of these properties. It is only mildly related to performance, unlikely to be rooted in essential architectural concerns, trivial to work around, and could be easily implemented in the compiler if GPUs permitted it. Specifically, the problem concerns programs like this:
let main (xs: i32) (is: i32) = map (\i -> xs[i]) is
This program contains an array index operation
xs[i]. Since Futhark is a safe high-level language, we insert a check to ensure that the index
i refers to a valid position in the array
xs. And of course, we want to execute the
map on the GPU as a kernel. However, if you try to compile the above program with
futhark-opencl, the compiler will crash during final code generation and complain that it cannot “compile assertion inside parallel kernel”. This means that the compiler found a bounds check inside kernel code that it cannot resolve statically.
So, why does the compiler refuse to do bounds checking on the GPU? The problem is not the check itself: it’s just two integer comparisons and a branch. The problem is how to handle the case of a failed bounds check, since neither CUDA nor OpenCL provide straightforward ways for a thread to terminate the entire kernel. A single thread can terminate itself (just
return from the kernel function), but this can result in deadlocks if the kernel is doing complicated synchronisation. An infinite loop is not an appropriate way to report the presence of an out-of-bounds access.
CUDA does provide an
assert() mechanism, but according to the documentation it also poisons the entire CUDA context, including all memory objects, which makes it impossible to retrieve diagnostic information about what went wrong, such that it can be reported in a structured way. I am fine with abnormal kernel termination having serious consequences (or being slow, since bounds checks are hopefully rare), but this is too much.
This issue is particularly frustrating since I cannot think of a reason why the hardware should not be able to support sudden kernel termination. CUDA’s
assert() proves that it does actually support it, and AMD and Intel GPUs are certainly able to terminate kernels that try to access unaligned memory.
Fortunately, there is a simple workaround, that the compiler even tells you about when this limitation is encountered: wrap the problematic access in
let main (xs: i32) (is: i32) = map (\i -> unsafe xs[i]) is
This simply makes the compiler not generate any dynamic checks in the enclosed expression. This includes not just bounds checks, but also size checks for e.g.
zip. Now, three pieces of advice when doing this:
unsafemeans unsafe! The index will not be checked. Make sure you understand what this means. If you use
unsafein conjunction with in-place updates, then you may perform arbitrary memory corruption. In the worst case, this can result in exploitable bugs! Only use
unsafeas a last resort, and when you are really sure that the index will be valid.
- Scope your
unsafeas narrowly as possible. Since
unsafecan easily hide real bugs, it is a really bad idea to e.g. put an
unsafeat the beginning of your
mainfunction to completely disable all dynamic checks.
- Test your program with
futhark-c --safe. Again,
futhark-ccan handle checks in any location. The
--safeoption makes it disregard any
unsafes in the program.
Some years ago we wrote a paper on a complex mechanism for slicing bounds checks (similar to what we do for array sizes). In practice it was too complex to implement to be practical, and still required dynamic checks as a fallback in pathological cases. The ease of implementing the
unsafe workaround won out. I still want to come up with a good solution for this, but ideally I just want the GPUs to support it properly.
So why do these limitations even exist? It has been over 25 years since Guy Blelloch showed how to handle arbitrary nested parallelism via the flattening algorithm, and in particular flattening also produces code of a simple flat form that removes any irregular allocations, and makes it easy to performs bound checks. Further, the current Futhark compilation model only handles regular parallelism, while Blelloch’s flattening can handle even irregular parallelism. Why are we making life hard for ourselves and our users?
The main reason is that while flattening preserves the asymptotic work/span cost of the parallelism, it will in practice often generate very slow code because it often results in polynomial increases in space usage due to over-parallelisation, and removes information necessary for crucial optimisations like loop tiling. The entire hypothesis behind Futhark is that we can use a somewhat less general model to achieve better performance in practice. Indeed, for fully regular programs, all allocations can be predicted in advance, so the problems only arise due to your attempt to move outside of Futhark’s core sweet spot. Still, we are steadily working towards being able to promise that any Futhark program that passes the type checker can be compiled to reasonably efficient parallel code. A core technique to bring us nearer is multi-versioned code, which is the subject of our upcoming PPOPP’19 paper.