On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:22:04 -0400, dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm trying to debug an extremely strange bug whose symptoms appear in a
std.parallelism example, though I'm not at all sure the root cause is in
std.parallelism. The bug report is at
https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/issues/1#issuecomment-1011717
.
Basically, the example in question sums up all the elements of a lazy
range (actually, std.algorithm.map) in parallel. It uses
taskPool.reduce, which divides the summation into work units to be
executed in parallel. When executed in parallel, the results of the
summation are non-deterministic after about the 12th decimal place, even
though all of the following properties are true:
1. The work is divided into work units in a deterministic fashion.
2. Within each work unit, the summation happens in a deterministic
order.
3. The final summation of the results of all the work units is done in
a deterministic order.
4. The smallest term in the summation is about 5e-10. This means the
difference across runs is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the
smallest term. It can't be a concurrency bug where some terms sometimes
get skipped.
5. The results for the individual tasks, not just the final summation,
differ in the low-order bits. Each task is executed in a single thread.
6. The rounding mode is apparently the same in all of the threads.
7. The bug appears even on machines with only one core, as long as the
number of task pool threads is manually set to >0. Since it's a single
core machine, it can't be a low level memory model issue.
What could possibly cause such small, non-deterministic differences in
floating point results, given everything above? I'm just looking for
suggestions here, as I don't even know where to start hunting for a bug
like this.
Well, on one hand floating point math is not cumulative, and running sums
have many known issues (I'd recommend looking up Khan summation). On the
hand, it should be repeatably different.
As for suggestions? First and foremost, you should always add small to
large, so try using iota(n-1,-1,-1) instead of iota(n). Not only should
the answer be better, but if your error rate goes down, you have a good
idea of where the problem is. I'd also try isolating your implementation's
numerics, from the underlying concurrency. i.e. use a task pool of 1 and
don't let the host thread join it, so the entire job is done by one
worker. The other thing to try is isolation /removing map and iota from
the equation.
