Reduce atomics #1351
Draft
Reduce atomics #1351
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
angeloskath
force-pushed
the
reduce-atomics
branch
from
2a32d76
to
6002d77
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added a kernel with atomics for a single col reduce. It gets back the performance that we lost from the refactor but I don't like that I don't understand why.
In our reduction benchmark this is significantly slower than the looped version. Moreover the 8-bit and 16-bit versions are painfully slow ~5x in comparison to 32 bits and 64 bits doesn't work at all so I am routing only the 32 bit types there.
I am not proposing we merge this but if anybody feels like playing with it and figuring out how it can be slower to use a 2x faster kernel according to the micro-benchmark I 'd be very interested to learn why.