mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-09-26, 09:58   #1
M344587487
 
M344587487's Avatar
 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017

3·5·61 Posts
Default Anyone tried rusticl?

It's an open source OpenCL 3.0 implementation that's in mesa and aims to support modern GPUs from all major vendors AFAICT (intel Iris, nouveau, arm mali, WIP radeonsi at least). I believe it's intended to replace clover for anything not legacy, clover being an existing OpenCL implementation in mesa that's showing its age.

Being able to use the OpenCL driver in mesa would be good because mesa is practically everywhere, when it's enabled by default in common distributions it may be possible to run OpenCL programs out of the box without having to mess about with things like ROCm. At least that's my naive hope.

It's only just made it into mesa so there's no big rush to test as it'll be a long time before it makes its way to standard distros and it probably needs time to mature. I'll test it when possible but that'll be months from now.

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Mesa-22.3-Rusticl-Merged
M344587487 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-21, 16:16   #2
M344587487
 
M344587487's Avatar
 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017

91510 Posts
Default

Looks like rusticl is worth a look on RDNA2 cards (at least) as it can outperform ROCm for LuxMark: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Rusticl-Outperformed-ROCm


Whether it can outperform competing implementations when running gpuowl/mfakto is an open question.
M344587487 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-21, 17:12   #3
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

711210 Posts
Default

Thanks for tracking developments.
Indicated Luxmark performance is 37423/36108 ~1.0364 x
Does Luxmark use mostly DP which gpuowl depends on, or SP?
Does the OpenCL 3.0 implementation support all the OpenCL2.0 features that gpuowl needs to compile and run? Some don't.
Mfakto would probably be ok; IIRC it doesn't require OpenCl 2.0, only at least 1.1.
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 08:32   #4
M344587487
 
M344587487's Avatar
 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017

3×5×61 Posts
Default

Probably SP but that's pure guess based on Lux being a rendering benchmark. rusticl is new so there's a good chance that it's missing some OpenCL 2.0 features, in fact the stated goal only goes so far as OpenCL 3.0 conformance so if there are missing features we need they may never be implemented. TBH I thought gpuowl had transitioned to 3.0 and that's what allowed nvidia cards to run gpuowl but you'll be more up to speed on that than me. Can't find any documentation on if rusticl will ever implement 2.0 features, basically it's up to Karol Herbst and/or redhat as they're the ones pouring the dev resources into rusticl.
M344587487 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 08:35.


Sun Dec 4 08:35:15 UTC 2022 up 108 days, 6:03, 0 users, load averages: 1.36, 0.93, 0.88

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔