Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 04:05:15 +0900

> There are many overloads of these functions. There's a version of

> `reduce` which does not take an `init`. This one already

> assumes/declares that the range's value type is the return type, and

> it will be the type of the implied `init` object. So the cited version

> is a legitimate implementation of those overloads.

> Just not of the other ones.

I understand there are other overloads, and in most use cases, the type of

`*first` will be T.

However, as long as the specification says `*first` may not be of type T,

implementations should cover the cases.

> Also, wouldn't it be possible to accumulate all of the parallel stuff

> first and then add `init` to the result at the end in series?

Even if we do so, we cannot assume `*first` is of type T, which leads to

the same issue.

As mentioned in the original post, this will result in the following code:

```

T acc = binary_op(*first, *(first+1));

for (auto it = first + 2; it != last; ++it) {

acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

}

// combine `acc` with other threads

```

This code assumes at least two elements are processed in each thread, but

this can limit potential parallelism in the algorithm.

This may not be a big problem in std::reduce(), but in more complicated

map-reduce patterns (std::reduce_transform), the user-defined transform

operator can take a reasonable amount of time.

Suppose that we want to apply std::transform_reduce() to a vector {a1, a2,

a3, a4} to compute init + f(a1) + f(a2) + f(a3) + f(a4), where f() is the

user-defined transform operator and `+` is the commutative binary operator.

Since `f()` can take a long time, it is expected for these computations to

be load balanced to 4 threads.

However, if we cannot assume `*first` is of type T (or cannot use a

monoid), each thread will require at least two elements, resulting in load

imbalance.

The problem is that we need at least two elements to make an accumulator,

if we (1) cannot assume `*first` is of type T or (2) cannot use a monoid.

2023年8月15日(火) 2:28 Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <

std-discussion_at_[hidden]>:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:25 PM Shumpei Shiina via Std-Discussion

> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > The standard says `init` should be accumulated only once for parallel

> STL (e.g., reduce(), transform_reduce(), exclusive_scan()), but this is

> contradicting the concept of "monoid", which is often used for functional

> programming for parallel patterns.

> >

> > std::reduce():

> > ```

> > template<class ExecutionPolicy, class ForwardIterator, class T, class

> BinaryOperation>

> > T reduce(ExecutionPolicy&& exec,

> > ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, T init,

> > BinaryOperation binary_op);

> > ```

> >

> > In the above std::reduce() example, the pair of `binary_op` and `init`

> does not constitute a (commutative) monoid, because `init` may not be an

> "identity" element.

> >

> > An identity element satisfies the following:

> > binary_op(identity, x) = x

> > binary_op(x, identity) = x

> >

> > This means that the final result does not change regardless of how many

> times the identity element is accumulated.

> > This property is beneficial for parallel implementations.

> >

> > With an identity element, std::reduce() can be straightforwardly

> parallelized for each thread:

> > ```

> > // [first, last) is a subrange given to this thread

> > T acc = identity;

> > for (auto it = first; it != last; ++it) {

> > acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

> > }

> > // combine `acc` with other threads

> > ```

> >

> > However, in reality, STL does not have an identity element, and `init`

> should be accumulated only once.

> > Thus, the code will look like:

> > ```

> > T acc = *first;

> > for (auto it = first + 1; it != last; ++it) {

> > acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

> > }

> > // combine `acc` with other threads

> > ```

> >

> > However, according to the following statement,

> >

> > > All of binary_op(init, *first), binary_op(*first, init),

> binary_op(init, init), and binary_op(*first, *first) shall be convertible

> to T.

> >

> > the type of each value (*first) is not necessarily T.

> >

> > Thus, initialization of acc for each thread (`T acc = *first;`) may not

> be correct.

> > It should be changed to `T acc = binary_op(*first, *(first+1))`, but

> what if each thread is assigned only one element?

> >

> > In fact, an existing STL implementation assumes `*first` is of type T:

> https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SyclParallelSTL/blob/b2cdb3580cc581172ed4de133b05d112afde5b50/include/sycl/algorithm/buffer_algorithms.hpp#L206

> >

> > Therefore, I think the standard may want to consider this issue either:

> > - by assuming `*first` is of type T for parallel execution, or

> > - by taking an argument for an identity element to construct a monoid.

>

> There are many overloads of these functions. There's a version of

> `reduce` which does not take an `init`. This one already

> assumes/declares that the range's value type is the return type, and

> it will be the type of the implied `init` object. So the cited version

> is a legitimate implementation of those overloads.

>

> Just not of the other ones.

>

> Also, wouldn't it be possible to accumulate all of the parallel stuff

> first and then add `init` to the result at the end in series?

> --

> Std-Discussion mailing list

> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]

> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion

>

> `reduce` which does not take an `init`. This one already

> assumes/declares that the range's value type is the return type, and

> it will be the type of the implied `init` object. So the cited version

> is a legitimate implementation of those overloads.

> Just not of the other ones.

I understand there are other overloads, and in most use cases, the type of

`*first` will be T.

However, as long as the specification says `*first` may not be of type T,

implementations should cover the cases.

> Also, wouldn't it be possible to accumulate all of the parallel stuff

> first and then add `init` to the result at the end in series?

Even if we do so, we cannot assume `*first` is of type T, which leads to

the same issue.

As mentioned in the original post, this will result in the following code:

```

T acc = binary_op(*first, *(first+1));

for (auto it = first + 2; it != last; ++it) {

acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

}

// combine `acc` with other threads

```

This code assumes at least two elements are processed in each thread, but

this can limit potential parallelism in the algorithm.

This may not be a big problem in std::reduce(), but in more complicated

map-reduce patterns (std::reduce_transform), the user-defined transform

operator can take a reasonable amount of time.

Suppose that we want to apply std::transform_reduce() to a vector {a1, a2,

a3, a4} to compute init + f(a1) + f(a2) + f(a3) + f(a4), where f() is the

user-defined transform operator and `+` is the commutative binary operator.

Since `f()` can take a long time, it is expected for these computations to

be load balanced to 4 threads.

However, if we cannot assume `*first` is of type T (or cannot use a

monoid), each thread will require at least two elements, resulting in load

imbalance.

The problem is that we need at least two elements to make an accumulator,

if we (1) cannot assume `*first` is of type T or (2) cannot use a monoid.

2023年8月15日(火) 2:28 Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <

std-discussion_at_[hidden]>:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:25 PM Shumpei Shiina via Std-Discussion

> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > The standard says `init` should be accumulated only once for parallel

> STL (e.g., reduce(), transform_reduce(), exclusive_scan()), but this is

> contradicting the concept of "monoid", which is often used for functional

> programming for parallel patterns.

> >

> > std::reduce():

> > ```

> > template<class ExecutionPolicy, class ForwardIterator, class T, class

> BinaryOperation>

> > T reduce(ExecutionPolicy&& exec,

> > ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, T init,

> > BinaryOperation binary_op);

> > ```

> >

> > In the above std::reduce() example, the pair of `binary_op` and `init`

> does not constitute a (commutative) monoid, because `init` may not be an

> "identity" element.

> >

> > An identity element satisfies the following:

> > binary_op(identity, x) = x

> > binary_op(x, identity) = x

> >

> > This means that the final result does not change regardless of how many

> times the identity element is accumulated.

> > This property is beneficial for parallel implementations.

> >

> > With an identity element, std::reduce() can be straightforwardly

> parallelized for each thread:

> > ```

> > // [first, last) is a subrange given to this thread

> > T acc = identity;

> > for (auto it = first; it != last; ++it) {

> > acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

> > }

> > // combine `acc` with other threads

> > ```

> >

> > However, in reality, STL does not have an identity element, and `init`

> should be accumulated only once.

> > Thus, the code will look like:

> > ```

> > T acc = *first;

> > for (auto it = first + 1; it != last; ++it) {

> > acc = binary_op(acc, *it);

> > }

> > // combine `acc` with other threads

> > ```

> >

> > However, according to the following statement,

> >

> > > All of binary_op(init, *first), binary_op(*first, init),

> binary_op(init, init), and binary_op(*first, *first) shall be convertible

> to T.

> >

> > the type of each value (*first) is not necessarily T.

> >

> > Thus, initialization of acc for each thread (`T acc = *first;`) may not

> be correct.

> > It should be changed to `T acc = binary_op(*first, *(first+1))`, but

> what if each thread is assigned only one element?

> >

> > In fact, an existing STL implementation assumes `*first` is of type T:

> https://github.com/KhronosGroup/SyclParallelSTL/blob/b2cdb3580cc581172ed4de133b05d112afde5b50/include/sycl/algorithm/buffer_algorithms.hpp#L206

> >

> > Therefore, I think the standard may want to consider this issue either:

> > - by assuming `*first` is of type T for parallel execution, or

> > - by taking an argument for an identity element to construct a monoid.

>

> There are many overloads of these functions. There's a version of

> `reduce` which does not take an `init`. This one already

> assumes/declares that the range's value type is the return type, and

> it will be the type of the implied `init` object. So the cited version

> is a legitimate implementation of those overloads.

>

> Just not of the other ones.

>

> Also, wouldn't it be possible to accumulate all of the parallel stuff

> first and then add `init` to the result at the end in series?

> --

> Std-Discussion mailing list

> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]

> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion

>

Received on 2023-08-14 19:05:27