noob newbie Computer Science researcher, it is always fun and
rewarding to watch people discussing about our research papers somewhere
on the Internet. Besides some obvious implications (e.g., fresh perspectives
from practitioners on the research subjects), it is a strong indicator that
my paper was not completely irrelevant junk that get published but nobody
really cares about it. Today, I came across a tweet thread about our
work, or more specifically, about the RSA implementation on GPUs, which is
what I was responsible for, as a second author of the paper.
Soon I found a somewhat depressing tweet about the paper.
”[…] the benchmark methodology is flawed. Single threaded CPU comparison only.”
Ugh… “flawed”. Really? I know I should not take this personal, but my heart is broken. If I read this tweet at night I would have completely lost my sleep. The most problematic(?) parts of the paper are as follows, but please read the full paper if interested:
The figure, table, and text compare the RSA performance between the GPU (ours) and CPU (from Intel IPP) implementations. The CPU numbers are from a single CPU core. Do not throw stones yet.
To be fair, I think the negative reaction is pretty much reasonable
. There are a bunch of academic papers that make clearly unfair comparisons between the CPU and GPU implementations, in order for their GPU implementations to look shinier than actually are. If my published paper was not clear enough to avoid those kinds of misunderstanding, it is primarily my fault. But let me defend our paper a little bit, by explaining some contexts on how to make a fair comparison in general and how it applied to our work.
It is pretty much easy to find papers claiming that “our GPU implementation shows an orders of magnitude speedup over CPU”. But they often make a comparison between a highly optimized GPU implementation and an unoptimized, single-core CPU implementation. Perhaps one can simply see our paper as one of them. But trust me. It is not what it seems like.
Actually I am a huge fan of the ISCA 2010 paper, “Debunking the 100X GPU vs. CPU Myth”, and it was indeed a kind of guideline for our work to not repeat common mistakes. Some quick takeaways from the paper are:
100-1000x speedups are illusions. The authors found that the gap between a single GPU and a single multi-core CPU narrows down to 2.5x on average, after applying extensive optimization for both CPU and GPU implementations.
The expected speedup is highly variable depending on workloads.
For optimal performance, an implementation must fully exploit opportunities provided by the underlying hardware. Many research papers tend to do this for their GPU implementations, but not much for the CPU implementations.
In summary, for a fair comparison between GPU and CPU performance for a specific application, you must ensure to optimize your CPU implementation to the reasonably acceptable level. You should parallelize your algorithm to run across multiple CPU cores. The memory access should be cache-friendly as much as possible. Your code should not confuse the branch predictor. SIMD operations, such as SSE, are crucial to exploit the instruction-level parallelism.
(In my personal opinion, CPU code optimization seems to take significantly more efforts than GPU code optimization at least for embarrassingly parallel algorithms, but anyways, not very relevant for this article.)
Of course there are some obvious, critical mistakes made by many papers, not addressed in detail in the above paper. Let me call these three deadly sins.
Sometimes not all parts of algorithms are completely offloadable to the GPU, leaving some non-parallelizable tasks for the CPU. Some papers only report the GPU kernel time, even if the CPU runtime cannot be completely hidden with overlapping, due to dependency.
More often, many papers assume that the input data is already on the GPU memory, and do not copy the output data back to the host memory. In reality, data transfer between host and GPU memory takes significant time, often more than the kernel run time itself depending on the computational intensity of the algorithm.
Often it is assumed that you always have large data for enough parallelism for full utilization of GPU. In some online applications, such as network applications as in our paper, it is not always true.
While it is not directly related to GPU, the paper “Twelve ways to fool the masses when giving performance results on parallel computers” provides another interesting food for thought, in the general context of parallel computing.
We tried a dozen of publicly available RSA implementations to find the fastest one, including our own implementation. Intel IPP (Integrated Performance Primitives) beat everything else, by a huge margin. It is heavily optimized with SSE intrinsics by Intel experts, and our platform was, not surprisingly, Intel. For instance, it ran up to three times faster than the OpenSSL implementations, depending on their versions (no worries, the latest OpenSSL versions runs much faster than it used to be).
The reason is threefold.
RSA is simply not parallelizable, at a coarse-grained scale for CPUs. Simply put, one RSA operation with a 1k-bit key requires roughly 768 modular multiplications of large integers, and each multiplication is dependent on the result of the previous multiplication. The only thing we can do is to parallelize each multiplication (and this is what we do in our work). To my best knowledge, this is true not only for RSA, but also for any public-key algorithms based on modular exponentiation. It would be a great research project, if one can derive a fully parallelizable public-key algorithm that still provides comparable crypto strength to RSA. Seriously.
The only coarse-grained parallelism found in RSA is from Chinese Remainder Theorem, which breaks an RSA operation into two independent modular exponentiations, thus runnable on two CPU cores. While this can reduce the latency of each RSA operation, note that it does not help the total throughput, since the total amount of work remains the same. Actually IPP supports for this mode, but it shows lower throughput than the single-core case, due to the communication cost between cores. Fine-grained parallelization of each modular multiplication on multiple CPU cores is simply a disaster. Even too obvious to state.
For those reasons, it is best for the CPU evaluation to run the sequential algorithm on individual RSA messages, on each core. We compare the sequential, non-parallelizable CPU implementation performance with the parallelized GPU implementation performance. This is why we show the single-core performance. One can make a rough estimation for her own environment from our single-core throughput, by considering the number of cores she has and the clock frequency.
In our paper, we clearly emphasized several times that the performance result is from a single core, not to be misunderstood as a whole CPU or a whole system (our server had two hexa-core Xeon processors). We also state that how many CPU cores are needed to match the GPU performance. And finally, perhaps most importantly, we make explicit chip-level comparisons, between a GPU, CPUs (as a whole), and a security processor in the Discussion section.
We accounted all the CPU and GPU run time for the GPU results. They also include memory transfer time between CPU and GPU and the kernel launch overheads.
Our paper does not simply say that RSA always runs faster on GPUs than CPUs. Instead, it clearly explains when is better to offload RSA operations to GPUs and when is not, and how to make a good decision dynamically, in terms of throughput and latency. The main system, SSLShader, opportunistically switch between CPU and GPU crypto operations as explained in the paper.
In short, we did our best to make fair comparisons.
Of course, I found that
myself the paper was not completely free
from some of common mistakes. Admittedly, this is a painful, but constructive
aspect of what I can learn from seemingly harsh comments on my research.
Here comes the list:
Perhaps the most critical mistake must be “In our evaluation, the GPU implementation of RSA shows a factor of 22.6 to 31.7 improvement over the fastest CPU implementation”. IN THE ABSTRACT. Yikes. It should have clearly stated that the CPU result was from the single-core case, as done in the main text.
Our paper lacks the context described above: “why we showed the single-core CPU performance”.
The paper does not explicitly say about what would be the expected throughput if we run the non-parallelizable algorithm on multiple CPU cores, individually. Clearly (single-core performance) * (# of cores) is the upper bound, since you cannot expect super-linear speedup for running on independent data. However, the speedup may be significantly lower than the number of cores, as commonly seen in multi-core applications. The answer was, it shows almost perfect linear scalability, since RSA operations have so small cache footprint that each core does not interfere with others. While the Table 4 implied it, the paper should have been explicit about this.
The graphs above. They should have had lines for multi-core cases, as we had done for another research project. One small excuse: please blame conferences with page limits. In many Computer Science research areas, including mine, conferences are primary venues for publication. Not journals with no page limits.