Unit tests fail

[pzawal]

Hi, I ran unit tests and ran into some errors.
Compiled with Visual C++ 2015 x64 on Windows 7 with Radeon 7970.

Different errors:
"unknown file: error: C++ exception with description "memallocsize too small to use this kernel on this device. Need: 0MB, but only have: -1984MB max alloc size" thrown in the test body.
[ FAILED ] testforward.compare_1_n_biased_nopad (2230 ms)"

"error: Expected: (0.1f) >= (loss), actual: 0.1 vs 2.72727
clblas teardown
[ FAILED ] testsimpleconvolvenet.imagesize_5_3_2layers_filtersize_3_3_biased_n18 (11310 ms)"

"ForwardAuto: kernel 5: this instance cant be used: For ForwardFc, filtersize and inputimagesize must be identical"

"Something went wrong, code -55" thrown in the test body.
[ FAILED ] testbackward.compare_1_n_kgsgo_32c5 (843 ms)"

"ForwardAuto: kernel 2: this instance cant be used: cannot use forward2, since outputimagesize * outputimagesize > maxworkgroupsize"

Full log http://pastebin.com/v9d7ZMFu

Gpuinfo output:

platform index: 0:
platform id: 000007FEDD2AF180
platform vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
platform name: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
platform num devices: 2

device index: 0
device id: 0000000000379A20
device type: 4
global memory size: 3072MB
local memory size: 32KB
global cache size: 16KB
global cacheline size: 64
max memory alloc size: 2112MB
max compute units: 32
max workgroup size: 256
max workitem dimensions: 3
max workitem sizes: 256 256 256
device name: Tahiti
opencl c version: OpenCL C 1.2
opencl device version: OpenCL 1.2 AMD-APP (1800.8)
frequency MHz: 925

[hughperkins]

Thanks! Ok, there are a few different test failures there. I don't have a plan for how to fix them yet, but I'll go through the probable cause of each one:

• the -1984MB, this is actually something I can probably fix without too much effort. I'm probably using a signed int, that is too small to contain a large number. I'll have a look at this
• error code -55, this is 'invalid work item size'. In my tests, I've been using cards with maximum work item size 512, or 1024. However, AMD devices typically have maximum work item size 256, I think. This doesnt mean that deepcl wont work for you. But it means certain specific unit tests might fail for you. I might look at modifying the test to not fail.
• outputimage size * outputimage size > maxgroupsize size. Similar to the previous one: the test was tested on non-AMD. I can modify the test to not fail. I'm 80% sure that the test failing doesnt indicate that deepcl will fail in actual usage on an AMD device: it just means that certain kernels will be ignored when run in certain geometries, and other kernels used instead. There are multiple kernels available, and each one is tried, to see which ones work, and which one is fastest, automatically

Summary:

• I will take a look at the -1984MB issue
• for the maxworkgroupsize issues, I'm fairly sure these are very specific tests, and you can ignore these failures, though I should probably fix the tests to not fail on AMD

[hughperkins]

Hi. It looks like I was using a long for getting device info, which is a 64-bit integer on linux, but only 32-bits on Windows. I've changed it to int64_t, which is unambiguously 64-bit, on any platform, and committed to master as 9760689 . If you pull down the changes, this might fix the issue with '-1984MB', hopefully.

[hughperkins]

commited change f3f8829 , which skips kernel 2 in testforward.compare_1_n_biased_pad, if 19*19> maxworkgroupsize

[hughperkins]

Ah, it looks like the errorcode -55 error is actually a bug: missing a guard, and so the kernel crashes. Thank-you for pointing this error out!

Committed e52d1a2 , which adds a guard to one of the backprop kernels. I think the test will likely still fail, but the error message might be a bit more compact now.

[hughperkins]

I think that covers all the test failures you highlighted above. Can you pull down the updates, and retry please?

[pzawal]

The -1984MB issue is fixed. Code -55 still shows though, not sure if that's an issue.

http://pastebin.com/22Ap2Np7

[hughperkins]

Hi pzawal, I'm not seeing an error -55 test failure any more. I'm seeing the following failures:

• C++ exception with description "cannot use forward3, since outputimagesize * outputimagesize > maxworkgroupsize" thrown in the test body. => I should probably modify the test to skip this
• error: C++ exception with description "cannot use BackwardGpuCached, since inputSize * inputSize > maxworkgroupsize" thrown in the test body. => I should probably modify the test to skip this (this was error -55 before, right?)
• (and then an error about norb datafile not found)

I will look at making the tests skip these two kernels, for these specific geometries, on AMD. I dont think these test failures are indicating any fundamental problem with DeepCL, on your hardware/os configuration. At runtime, these kernels would simply be skipped, and other kernels used instead.

[hughperkins]

Ok, I've modified the tests to modify the geometry slightly for the kernels that are failing. I think it's good for the tests to run on these kernels anyway, to check correctness, though we cant test on incompatible geometries, hence modify the geometries slightly. Commit 7634e54

[pzawal]

There were no unit test failures due to code -55, I meant that it still shows in output in some subtests. I guess it's all ok then :) thanks

http://pastebin.com/eE9v811x

[hughperkins]

No, you're right actually, let's fix those. Committed 719e82b , which adds some guards, and hopefully removes the remaining error -55 s, from the output. Can you pull this down, and check if there are still any error -55s in the output?

[pzawal]

They disappeared, all nice now.

http://pastebin.com/zV9ASVqq

Btw, you should update your clBLAS fork to include
clMathLibraries/clBLAS@7877094, fixes a minor vs 2015 compilation issue. I fixed it manually, only now noticed the linked clBLAS is to a fork.

[hughperkins]

They disappeared, all nice now.

Cool :-)

Btw, you should update your clBLAS fork to include clMathLibraries/clBLAS@7877094, fixes a minor vs 2015 compilation issue.

Ah, good info. Thanks! :-)