这里我尝试使用一些伪代码自我解释CUDA启动参数模型（或执行配置模型），但不知道是否有一些大错误，所以希望有人帮助审查它，并给我一些建议。谢谢先进。
这里是：
/*
normally, we write kernel function like this.
note, __global__ means this function will be called from host codes,
and executed on device. and a __global__ function could only return void.
if there's any parameter passed into __global__ function, it should be stored
in shared memory on device. so, kernel function is so different from the *normal*
C/C++ functions. if I was the CUDA authore, I should make the kernel function more
different from a normal C function.
*/
__global__ void
kernel(float *arr_on_device, int n) {
int idx = blockIdx.x * blockDIm.x + threadIdx.x;
if (idx < n) {
arr_on_device[idx] = arr_on_device[idx] * arr_on_device[idx];
}
}
/*
after this definition, we could call this kernel function in our normal C/C++ codes !!
do you feel something wired ? un-consistant ?
normally, when I write C codes, I will think a lot about the execution process down to
the metal in my mind, and this one...it's like some fragile codes. break the sequential
thinking process in my mind.
in order to make things normal, I found a way to explain: I expand the *__global__ * function
to some pseudo codes:
*/
#define __foreach(var, start, end) for (var = start, var < end; ++var)
__device__ int
__indexing() {
const int blockId = blockIdx.x * gridDim.x + gridDim.x * gridDim.y * blockIdx.z;
return
blockId * (blockDim.x * blockDim.y * blockDim.z) +
threadIdx.z * (blockDim.x * blockDim.y) +
threadIdx.x;
}
global_config =:
{
/*
global configuration.
note the default values are all 1, so in the kernel codes,
we could just ignore those dimensions.
*/
gridDim.x = gridDim.y = gridDim.z = 1;
blockDim.x = blockDim.y = blockDim.z = 1;
};
kernel =:
{
/*
I thought CUDA did some bad evil-detail-covering things here.
it's said that CUDA C is an extension of C, but in my mind,
CUDA C is more like C++, and the *<<<>>>* part is too tricky.
for example:
kernel<<<10, 32>>>(); means kernel will execute in 10 blocks each have 32 threads.
dim3 dimG(10, 1, 1);
dim3 dimB(32, 1, 1);
kernel<<<dimG, dimB>>>(); this is exactly the same thing with above.
it's not C style, and C++ style ? at first, I thought this could be done by
C++'s constructor stuff, but I checked structure *dim3*, there's no proper
constructor for this. this just brroke the semantics of both C and C++. I thought
force user to use *kernel<<<dim3, dim3>>>* would be better. So I'd like to keep
this rule in my future codes.
*/
gridDim = dimG;
blockDim = dimB;
__foreach(blockIdx.z, 0, gridDim.z)
__foreach(blockIdx.y, 0, gridDim.y)
__foreach(blockIdx.x, 0, gridDim.x)
__foreach(threadIdx.z, 0, blockDim.z)
__foreach(threadIdx.y, 0, blockDim.y)
__foreach(threadIdx.x, 0, blockDim.x)
{
const int idx = __indexing();
if (idx < n) {
arr_on_device[idx] = arr_on_device[idx] * arr_on_device[idx];
}
}
};
/*
so, for me, gridDim & blockDim is like some boundaries.
e.g. gridDim.x is the upper bound of blockIdx.x, this is not that obvious for people like me.
*/
/* the declaration of dim3 from vector_types.h of CUDA/include */
struct __device_builtin__ dim3
{
unsigned int x, y, z;
#if defined(__cplusplus)
__host__ __device__ dim3(unsigned int vx = 1, unsigned int vy = 1, unsigned int vz = 1) : x(vx), y(vy), z(vz) {}
__host__ __device__ dim3(uint3 v) : x(v.x), y(v.y), z(v.z) {}
__host__ __device__ operator uint3(void) { uint3 t; t.x = x; t.y = y; t.z = z; return t; }
#endif /* __cplusplus */
};
typedef __device_builtin__ struct dim3 dim3;