Analyzing CUDA workloads using a detailed GPU simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern Graphic Processing Units (GPUs) provide sufficiently flexible programming models that understanding their performance can provide insight in designing tomorrow's manycore processors, whether those are GPUs or otherwise. The combination of multiple, multithreaded, SIMD cores makes studying these GPUs useful in understanding tradeoffs among memory, data, and thread level parallelism. While modern GPUs offer orders of magnitude more raw computing power than contemporary CPUs, many important applications, even those with abundant data level parallelism, do not achieve peak performance. This paper characterizes several non-graphics applications written in NVIDIA's CUDA programming model by running them on a novel detailed microarchitecture performance simulator that runs NVIDIA's parallel thread execution (PTX) virtual instruction set. For this study, we selected twelve non-trivial CUDA applications demonstrating varying levels of performance improvement on GPU hardware (versus a CPU-only sequential version of the application). We study the performance of these applications on our GPU performance simulator with configurations comparable to contemporary high-end graphics cards. We characterize the performance impact of several microarchitecture design choices including choice of interconnect topology, use of caches, design of memory controller, parallel workload distribution mechanisms, and memory request coalescing hardware. Two observations we make are (1) that for the applications we study, performance is more sensitive to interconnect bisection bandwidth rather than latency, and (2) that, for some applications, running fewer threads concurrently than on-chip resources might otherwise allow can improve performance by reducing contention in the memory system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".