From: Kahina Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:07 +0000 (+0100) Subject: MAJ commentaire de la figure 1 X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/kahina_paper1.git/commitdiff_plain/6dbe0b7204079bfef31d546107f53fd7f84e5d33?ds=sidebyside;hp=d2eaa5b6b9f4ba47dbfa2aeaae51427945accf72 MAJ commentaire de la figure 1 --- diff --git a/figures/openMP-GPU.txt b/figures/openMP-GPU.txt index 26e0696..8c7c536 100644 --- a/figures/openMP-GPU.txt +++ b/figures/openMP-GPU.txt @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ 100000 621.59 11 49.20 2360.15 11 150000 1405.87 11 49.03 5805.67 12 250000 5671.29 16 60.48 21550.902 16 -300000 5635 11 40.55 21413 11 -350000 8366.34 12 52.40 31792.092 12 -400000 15458.3 16 59.91 58741.54 16 +300000 5898.3 11 40.55 22413 11 +350000 8366.34 12 52.40 #31792.092 12 +400000 15458.3 16 59.91 #58741.54 16 # Second index block (index 1) diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex index 04e1316..d9d72c3 100644 --- a/paper.tex +++ b/paper.tex @@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ E5620@2.40GHz and a GPU K40 (with 6 Go of ram). \subsection{Comparative study} In this section, we discuss the performance Ehrlich-Aberth method of root finding polynomials implemented on CPUs and on GPUs. -We performed a set of experiments on the sequential and the parallel algorithms, for both sparse and full polynomials and different sizes. We took into account the execution time,the polynomial size and the number of threads per block performed by sum or each experiment on CPUs and on GPUs. +We performed a set of experiments on the sequential and the parallel algorithms, for both sparse and full polynomials and different sizes. We took into account the execution time, the polynomial size and the number of threads per block performed by sum or each experiment on CPUs and on GPUs. All experimental results obtained from the simulations are made in double precision data, for a convergence tolerance of the methods set to $10^{-7}$. Since we were more interested in the comparison of the performance behaviors of Ehrlich-Aberth and Durand-Kerner methods on CPUs versus on GPUs. The initialization values of the vector solution of the Ehrlich-Aberth method are given in section 2.2. \subsubsection{The execution time in seconds of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on CPU core vs. on a Tesla GPU} @@ -656,7 +656,8 @@ All experimental results obtained from the simulations are made in double precis \end{figure} Figure 1 %%show a comparison of execution time between the parallel and sequential version of the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm with sparse polynomial exceed 100000, -We report the execution times of the Ehrlich-Aberth method implemented on one core of the Quad-Core Xeon E5620 CPU and those of the same methods implemented on one Nvidia Tesla K40c GPU, with sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000. We can see that the methods implemented on the GPU are faster than those implemented on the CPU. This is due to the GPU ability to compute the data-parallel functions faster than its CPU counterpart. However, the execution time for the sequential implementation exceed 16,000 s for 450,000 degrees polynomials, in counterpart the GPU implementation for the same polynomials need only 350 s, more than again, with 1,000,000 polynomials degrees GPU implementation not reach 2,300 s degrees. While CPU implementation need more than 10 hours. We can also notice that the GPU implementation are almost 47 faster then those implementation on the CPU. Furthermore, we verify that the number of iterations is the same. This reduction of time allows us to compute roots of polynomial of more important degree at the same time than with a CPU. +We report the execution times of the Ehrlich-Aberth method implemented on one core of the Quad-Core Xeon E5620 CPU and those of the same methods implemented on one Nvidia Tesla K40c GPU, with sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000. We can see that the method implemented on the GPU are faster than those implemented on the CPU. This is due to the GPU ability to compute the data-parallel functions faster than its CPU counterpart. However, the execution time for the CPU implementation exceed 5,000 s for 250,000 degrees polynomials, in counterpart the GPU implementation for the same polynomials not reach 100 s, more than again, % with 1,000,000 polynomials degrees GPU implementation not reach 2,300 s degrees. While CPU implementation need more than 10 hours. +with an execution time under to 2500 s CPU implementation can resolve polynomials degrees of only 200,000 s, whereas GPU implementation can resolve polynomials more than 1,000,000 degrees. We can also notice that the GPU implementation are almost 47 faster then those implementation on the CPU. Furthermore, we verify that the number of iterations is the same. This reduction of time allows us to compute roots of polynomial of more important degree at the same time than with a CPU. @@ -722,7 +723,7 @@ This figure show the execution time of the both algorithm EA and DK with sparse \begin{figure}[H] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/openMP-GPU} -\caption{The execution time of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on OpenMP(1core, 4cores) and GPU(Tesla k40)} +\caption{The execution time in seconds of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on OpenMP(1 core, 4 cores) vs. on a Tesla GPU} \label{fig:01} \end{figure}