C OpenMP parallel bubble sort

Question

I have an implementation of parallel bubble sort algorithm(Odd-Even transposition sort) in C, using OpenMP. However, after I tested it it's slower than the serial version(by about 10%) although I have a 4 cores processor ( 2 real x 2 because of Intel hyperthreading). I have checked to see if the cores are actually used and I can see them at 100% each when running the program. Therefore I think I did a mistake in the implementation the algorithm.

I am using linux with kernel 2.6.38-8-generic.

This is how I compile:

gcc -o bubble-sort bubble-sort.c -Wall -fopenmp or

gcc -o bubble-sort bubble-sort.c -Wall -fopenmp for the serial version

This is how i run:

./bubble-sort < in_10000 > out_10000

#include <omp.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main()
{
        int i, n, tmp, *x, changes;
        int chunk;
        scanf("%d ", &n);
        chunk = n / 4;
        x = (int*) malloc(n * sizeof(int));
        for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
            scanf("%d ", &x[i]);
    changes = 1;
    int nr = 0;
    while(changes)
    {
    #pragma omp parallel private(tmp)
    {
            nr++;
            changes = 0;
            #pragma omp for \
                    reduction(+:changes)
            for(i = 0; i < n - 1; i = i + 2)
            {
                    if(x[i] > x[i+1] )
                    {
                            tmp = x[i];
                            x[i] = x[i+1];
                            x[i+1] = tmp;
                            ++changes;
                    }
            }
            #pragma omp for \
                    reduction(+:changes)
            for(i = 1; i < n - 1; i = i + 2)
            {
                    if( x[i] > x[i+1] )
                    {
                            tmp = x[i];
                            x[i] = x[i+1];
                            x[i+1] = tmp;
                            ++changes;
                    }
            }
    }
    }

    return 0;
}

Later edit:

It seems to work well now after I made the changes you suggested. It also scales pretty good(I tested on 8 physical cores too -> took 21s for a set of 150k numbers which is far less than on one core). However if I set the OMP_SCHEDULE environment variable myself the performance decreases...

I't pretty solidly on 1 core with my quadcore cpu. Also, what where you thinking doing scanf in a parallel for loop? — sehe
– sehe, Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 15:47
Sigh. Forget about the 1-core thing: it's due to pragma's being silently ignored without -fopenmp compile flag. Silly me — sehe
– sehe, Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 15:54
I have forgot to remove the parallel section in the scanf for loop(used an older version of code). It's not the way I tested. — Dan Lincan
– Dan Lincan, Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 16:14

Alexey Kukanov · Accepted Answer · 2011-11-03 21:03:56Z

3

You should profile it and check where threads spend time.

One possible reason is that parallel regions are constantly created and destroyed; depending on OpenMP implementation, it could lead to re-creation of the thread pool, though good implementations should probably handle this case.

Some small things to shave off:
- ok seems completely unnecessary, you can just change the loop exit condition to i<n-1;
- explicit barrier is unnecessary - first, you put it out of parallel regions so it makes no sense; and second, OpenMP parallel regions and loops have implicit barriers at the end;
- combine at least the two consequent parallel regions inside the while loop:

#pragma omp parallel private(tmp)
{
    #pragma omp for bla-bla
    for (i=0; i<n-1; i+=2 ) {...}

    #pragma omp for bla-bla
    for (i=1; i<n-1; i+=2 ) {...}
}

answered Nov 3, 2011 at 21:03

Alexey Kukanov

12.9k2 gold badges40 silver badges58 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

C OpenMP parallel bubble sort

1 Answer 1

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related