• 10/30/2018
  • Public Content

Threading: Achieving Work-Group Level Parallelism

Since work-groups are independent, they can execute concurrently on different hardware threads. So the number of work-groups should be not less than the number of logical cores. A larger number of work-groups results in more flexibility in scheduling, at the cost of task-switching overhead.
Also notice that in the opposite case, when the number of work-groups is relatively small, in compare to, for example the value of
, then even a small change in the work-groups amount can result in a significant performance change.
For example, if you run a number of work-groups that equals to
, then each compute unit process exactly one work-group. So in ideal conditions all threads finish at the same time. Now consider the case, when work-group size is changed, so that
work-groups are executed instead. In such case, one thread does two times more job than the others, which might double the overall execution time. Some inherent threads divergence might hide the effect. The negative effect of “outstanding” work-groups is less and less pronounced as the number of work-groups grows, since imbalance is decreasing at a same pace.
Notice that multiple cores of a CPU as well as multiple CPUs (in a multi-socket machine) constitute a single OpenCL™ device. Separate cores are compute units. The device fission extension enables you to control compute unit use within a compute device. For more information on the device fission, refer to the OpenCL™ Device Fission for CPU Performance.
For the best performance and parallelism between work-groups, ensure that execution of a work-group takes at least 100,000 clocks. A smaller value increases the proportion of switching overhead compared to actual work.

Product and Performance Information


Performance varies by use, configuration and other factors. Learn more at www.Intel.com/PerformanceIndex.