Source (GitHub)

4.6. Tutorial 6: matrix-vector multiplication optimisation

As always, do not hesitate to read through the Poplar and PopLibs User Guide to complement this tutorial.


In order to run this tutorial on the IPU you will need to have a Poplar SDK environment enabled (see the Getting Started Guide for your IPU system).

You will also need a C++ toolchain compatible with the C++11 standard, build commands in this tutorial use GCC.

Optimising matrix-vector multiplication

In the previous tutorial, we learnt how to build a more complex vertex that multiplies a matrix by a vector. However, for a massively parallel machine such as the IPU, the strategy in tutorial 5 is not the most efficient. In particular:

  • Allocating one vertex to each row may not create enough vertices to occupy all the workers on the machine.

  • The input vector needs to be broadcast to every tile, which results in a large communication cost.

A more efficient strategy is to split each row into several segments and have the vertices calculate the dot product of that row segment with the corresponding segment of the input vector. After these partial sums have been calculated, a reduction is needed to add all the partial sums together for each output element to get the final output value.

This tutorial uses a simple algorithm to estimate the best way of splitting the data across the tiles in order to get the best performance. The PopLibs matrix-multiply functions use a similar, but more sophisticated, method that also considers the best instructions to use and different ways of reshaping the tensor data.

In this tutorial, there is no code for you to complete; the aim is to understand the code and experiment with different matrix sizes. You can use the command line option --device to select the device on which the code is run. By default, a Mk2 IPUModel is used as a simulation of the behaviour of the IPU hardware.

The device code in matrix-mul-codelets.cpp includes an extra vertex class, called ReduceVertex, which sums a set of values in a vector.

The host file follows the same structure as the previous tutorial. The difference in this example is in the buildMultiplyProgram function. The first thing this does is work out how many segments to split the matrix rows into:

// Get the optimal column axis split to split the number of columns
// into partial sums
unsigned colAxisSplit = calcOptimalColAxisSplit(graph, numRows, numCols);

Looking at the calcOptimalColAxisSplit function, you can see that it just iterates through all possible splits and calls the estimateCycles function for that split. The estimateCycles function itself tries to estimate how many cycles the calculation will take to perform. This is done by looking at the worst-case running time and exchange time of the tiles involved in both the partial-sum calculation phase and the reduction phase. Note that the cycles estimated in estimateCycles can be manually adjusted by the user. The choice of exact number in this tutorial is based on assumptions. It is important to implement the code and run it on hardware in order to obtain reliable cycle counts.

Once the split is determined, the code creates a new tensor to hold the intermediate partial-sum calculations:

// Create a tensor to hold the intermediate calculated partial sums
auto partials = graph.addTensor("float", {numRows, colAxisSplit}, "partials");

The calculation is split into two phases. The first phase calculates the dot product of all the row segments and writes to the partials tensor. The second phase reads the partials tensor, adds up the partial sums and writes the output to the final out tensor.

These two phases are built with two loops. The first populates the mulCS compute set:

// Create a compute set to hold the vertices to perform the
// partial sum calculations.
ComputeSet mulCS = graph.addComputeSet("mulCS");

// Create a vertex for each segment, for each row.
for (unsigned i = 0; i < colAxisSplit; ++i) {
    auto v = graph.addVertex(mulCS, "DotProductVertex",

The second loop builds up the reduceCS compute set:

// Create a compute set to calculate the reduction.
auto reduceCS = graph.createComputeSet("reduceCS");

// For each output element create a vertex.
for (unsigned row = 0; row < numRows; ++row) {
auto v = graph.addVertex(reduceCS, "ReduceVertex",

The final program, which performs the entire multiplication, consists of executing the two compute sets in order:

return Sequence({Execute(mulCS), Execute(reduceCS)});

At the end, the program calls the printProfileSummary function to display information about memory use and the number of cycles for execution and communication.

This example includes a makefile so you can build it by running make. After that, try running the program for various sizes of data. For example:

$ ./tut6 10000 1000
Multiplying matrix of size 10000x1000 by vector of size 1000
Constructing compute graph and control program
Best split chosen:
colsAxisSplit=7, total cost=3996 (compute cost=3696,
                                  exchange cost=143,
                                  reduce exchange cost=49,
                                  reduce compute cost=108)
Worst cost seen: 53807
Running graph program to multiply matrix by vector
Multiplication result OK

This output is followed by the profile data.

From the output above, you can see that the program splits each row into seven segments with an estimated cycle cost of 3,996 cycles.

The profile output includes a lot of information. The section most relevant to us is under the heading “Execution”, you should see something like:


Programs executed:


  Total cycles:                                         6,681,766 (approx 5,023.9 microseconds)
  Tile average compute cycles (including idle threads): 3,801.8 (0.1% of total)
  Tile average compute cycles (excluding idle threads): 3,717.6 (0.1% of total)
  Tile average IPU exchange cycles:                     8,697.4 (0.1% of total)
  Tile average global exchange cycles:                  0.0 (0.0% of total)
  Tile average host exchange cycles:                    6,663,550.8 (99.7% of total)
  Tile average sync cycles:                             1,134.8 (0.0% of total)

The figure we are most interested in is:

Tile average compute cycles (excluding idle threads): 3,717.6 (0.1% of total)

This is the average number of compute cycles across all tiles and is pretty close to the program estimate of 3996. Note that since IPUModel is used here, numbers given when profiling are estimated and might differ from the execution profiling when running on hardware (see this explanation of IPUModel).

The “Total cycles” line is the overall time taken to run the program; you can also think of this as the number of cycles taken by a single tile. It is the total cycles for compute plus exchange plus sync plus host I/O.

The “Tile average host exchange cycles” line tells us the average number of cycles used for transferring data to and from the host by all tiles. If you subtract this from the “Total cycles” number, then you get the compute + sync + exchange cycles for one tile.

You can get far more detailed insights into the behaviour of the program by using the PopVision Graph Analyser tool. The program writes out the profile.pop file that can be read by the graph analyser. For more information about the Graph Analyser, see PopVision Graph Analyser User Guide.


  • To run this tutorial on a Mk1 IPU Model, the command will change to:

$ ./tut6 10000 1000 --device model-ip1
  • This tutorial can also be run with IPU hardware. The command will change to:

$ ./tut6 10000 1000 --device ipu

The execution profile will look like:


Programs executed:


  Total cycles:                                         25,444,984 (approx 19,131.6 microseconds)
  Tile average compute cycles (including idle threads): 28,300.3 (0.1% of total)
  Tile average IPU exchange cycles:                     8,743.1 (0.0% of total)
  Tile average global exchange cycles:                  0.0 (0.0% of total)
  Tile average host exchange cycles:                    2,641,488.4 (10.4% of total)
  Tile average sync cycles:                             135,849.6 (0.5% of total)

Note that the total cycles per tile using IPU hardware is significantly larger than when using the IPU Model. The main overhead comes from the StreamCopyBegin program. The StreamCopyBegin is measuring cycles spent during which the host is preparing I/O. To reduce latencies in exchange fabric, the configuration of exchange in this simulated model is set to be simplistic. The previous cycle estimates assumed theoretical optimum cycle counts which would really only be seen for hand crafted assembler. For simplicity, this tutorial is using a C++ vertex for which the cycle count is much higher.

Copyright (c) 2018 Graphcore Ltd. All rights reserved.