RFC for histogram CPU backend implementation (#1930)

Proposal for CPU backend implementation for histogram.

rfcs/proposed/algorithms_histogram_cpu_backends/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# Host Backends Support for the Histogram APIs
+
+## Introduction
+The oneDPL library added histogram APIs, currently implemented only for device policies with the DPC++ backend. These
+APIs are defined in the oneAPI Specification 1.4. Please see the
+[oneAPI Specification](https://github.com/uxlfoundation/oneAPI-spec/blob/main/source/elements/oneDPL/source/parallel_api/algorithms.rst#parallel-algorithms)
+for details. The host-side backends (serial, TBB, OpenMP) are not yet supported. This RFC proposes extending histogram
+support to these backends.
+
+The pull request for the proposed implementation exists [here](https://github.com/oneapi-src/oneDPL/pull/1974).
+
+## Motivations
+There are many cases to use a host-side serial or a host-side implementation of histogram. Another motivation for adding
+the support is simply to be spec compliant with the oneAPI specification.
+
+## Design Considerations
+
+### Key Requirements
+Provide support for the `histogram` APIs with the following policies and backends:
+- Policies: `seq`, `unseq`, `par`, `par_unseq`
+- Backends: `serial`, `tbb`, `openmp`
+
+Users have a choice of execution policies when calling oneDPL APIs. They also have a number of options of backends which
+they can select from when using oneDPL. It is important that all combinations of these options have support for the
+`histogram` APIs.
+
+### Performance
+Histogram algorithms typically involve minimal computation and are likely to be memory-bound. So, the implementation prioritizes
+reducing memory accesses and minimizing temporary memory traffic.
+
+For CPU backends, we will focus on input sizes ranging from 32K to 4M elements and 32 - 4k histogram bins. Smaller sizes
+of input may best be suited for serial histogram implementation, and very large sizes may be better suited for GPU
+device targets. Histogram bin counts can vary from use case to use case, but the most common rule of thumb is to size
+the number of bins approximately to the cube root of the number of input elements. For our input size ranges this gives
+us a range of 32 - 256. In practice, some users find need to increase the number of bins beyond that rough rule.
+For this reason, we have aelected our histogram size range to 32 - 4k elements.
+
+### Memory Footprint
+There are no guidelines here from the standard library as this is an extension API. Still, we will minimize memory
+footprint where possible.
+
+### Code Reuse
+We want to minimize adding requirements for parallel backends to implement, and lift as much as possible to the
+algorithm implementation level. We should be able to avoid adding a `__parallel_histogram` call in the individual
+backends, and instead rely upon `__parallel_for`.
+
+### SIMD/openMP SIMD Implementation
+Currently oneDPL relies upon openMP SIMD to provide its vectorization, which is designed to provide vectorization across
+loop iterations, oneDPL does not directly use any intrinsics.
+
+There are a few parts of the histogram algorithm to consider. For the calculation to determine which bin to increment
+there are two APIs, even and custom range which have significantly different methods to determine the bin to increment.
+For the even bin API, the calculations to determine selected bin have some opportunity for vectorization as each input
+has the same mathematical operations applied to each. However, for the custom range API, each input element uses a
+binary search through a list of bin boundaries to determine the selected bin. This operation will have a different
+length and control flow based upon each input element and will be very difficult to vectorize.
+
+Next, let's consider the increment operation itself. This operation increments a data dependent bin location, and may
+result in conflicts between elements of the same vector. This increment operation therefore is unvectorizable without
+more complex handling. Some hardware does implement SIMD conflict detection via specific intrinsics, but this is not
+available via OpenMP SIMD. Alternatively, we can multiply our number of temporary histogram copies by a factor of the
+vector width, but it is unclear if it is worth the overhead. OpenMP SIMD provides an `ordered` structured block which
+we can use to exempt the increment from SIMD operations as well. However, this often results in vectorization being
+refused by the compiler. Initial implementation will avoid vectorization of this main histogram loop.
+
+Last, for our below proposed implementation there is the task of combining temporary histogram data into the global
+output histogram. This is directly vectorizable via our existing brick_walk implementation, and will be vectorized when
+a vector policy is used.
+
+### Serial Backend
+We plan to support a serial backend for histogram APIs in addition to openMP and TBB. This backend will handle all
+policies types, but always provide a serial unvectorized implementation. To make this backend compatible with the other
+approaches, we will use a single temporary histogram copy, which then is copied to the final global histogram. In our
+benchmarking, using a temporary copy performs similarly as compared to initializing and then accumulating directly into
+the output global histogram. There seems to be no performance motivated reason to special case the serial algorithm to
+use the global histogram directly.
+
+## Existing APIs / Patterns
+
+### count_if
+`histogram` is similar to `count_if` in that it conditionally increments a number of counters based upon the data in a
+sequence. `count_if` relies upon the `transform_reduce` pattern internally, and returns a scalar-typed value and doesn't
+provide any function to modify the variable being incremented. Using `count_if` without significant modification would
+require us to loop through the entire sequence for each output bin in the histogram. From a memory bandwidth
+perspective, this is untenable. Similarly, using a `histogram` pattern to implement `count_if` is unlikely to provide a
+well-performing result in the end, as contention should be far higher, and `transform_reduce` is a very well-matched
+pattern performance-wise.
+
+### parallel_for
+`parallel_for` is an interesting pattern in that it is very generic and embarrassingly parallel. This is close to what
+we need for `histogram`. However, we cannot simply use it without any added infrastructure. If we were to just use
+`parallel_for` alone, there would be a race condition between threads when incrementing the values in the output
+histogram. We should be able to use `parallel_for` as a building block for our implementation, but it requires some way
+to synchronize and accumulate between threads.
+
+## Alternative Approaches
+
+### Atomics
+This method uses atomic operations to remove the race conditions during accumulation. With atomic increments of the
+output histogram data, we can merely run a `parallel_for` pattern.
+
+To deal with atomics appropriately, we have some limitations. We must either use standard library atomics, atomics
+specific to a backend, or custom atomics specific to a compiler. `C++17` provides `std::atomic<T>`, however, this can
+only provide atomicity for data which is created with atomics in mind. This means allocating temporary data and then
+copying it to the output data. `C++20` provides `std::atomic_ref<T>` which would allow us to wrap user-provided output
+data in an atomic wrapper, but we cannot assume `C++20` for all users. OpenMP provides atomic operations, but that is
+only available for the OpenMP backend. The working plan was to implement a macro like `_ONEDPL_ATOMIC_INCREMENT(var)`
+which uses an `std::atomic_ref` if available, and alternatively uses compiler builtins like `InterlockedAdd` or
+`__atomic_fetch_add_n`. In a proof of concept implementation, this seemed to work, but does reach more into details than
+compiler / OS specifics than is desired for implementations prior to `C++20`.
+
+After experimenting with a proof of concept implementation of this implementation, it seems that the atomic
+implementation has very limited applicability to real cases. We explored a spectrum of number of elements combined with
+number of bins with both OpenMP and TBB. There was some subset of cases for which the atomics implementation
+outperformed the proposed implementation (below). However, this was generally limited to some specific cases where the
+number of bins was very large (~1 Million), and even for this subset significant benefit was only found for cases with a
+small number for input elements relative to number of bins. This makes sense because the atomic implementation is able
+to avoid the overhead of allocating and initializing temporary histogram copies, which is largest when the number of
+bins is large compared to the number of input elements. With many bins, contention on atomics is also limited as
+compared to the embarrassingly parallel proposal which does experience this contention.
+
+When we examine the real world utility of these cases, we find that they are uncommon and unlikely to be the important
+use cases. Histograms generally are used to categorize large images or arrays into a smaller number of bins to
+characterize the result. Cases for which there are similar or more bins than input elements are not very practical in
+practice. The maintenance and complexity cost associated with supporting and maintaining a second implementation to
+serve this subset of cases does not seem to be justified. Therefore, this implementation has been discarded at this
+time.
+
+### Other Unexplored Approaches
+* One could consider some sort of locking approach which locks mutexes for subsections of the output histogram prior to
+modifying them. It's possible such an approach could provide a similar approach to atomics, but with different
+overhead trade-offs. It seems quite likely that this would result in more overhead, but it could be worth exploring.
+
+* Another possible approach could be to do something like the proposed implementation one, but with some sparse
+representation of output data. However, I think the general assumptions we can make about the normal case make this
+less likely to be beneficial. It is quite likely that `n` is much larger than the output histograms, and that a large
+percentage of the output histogram may be occupied, even when considering dividing the input amongst multiple threads.
+This could be explored if we find temporary storage is too large for some cases and the atomic approach does not
+provide a good fallback.
+
+## Proposal
+After exploring the above implementation for `histogram`, the following proposal better represents the use cases which
+are important, and provides reasonable performance for most cases.
+
+### Embarrassingly Parallel Via Temporary Histograms
+This method uses temporary storage and a pair of calls to backend specific `parallel_for` functions to accomplish the
+`histogram`. These calls will use the existing infrastructure to provide properly composable parallelism, without extra
+histogram-specific patterns in the implementation of a backend.
+
+This algorithm does however require that each parallel backend will add a
+`__enumerable_thread_local_storage<_StoredType>` struct which provides the following:
+* constructor which takes a variadic list of args to pass to the constructor of each thread's object
+* `get_for_current_thread()` returns reference to the current thread's stored object
+* `get_with_id(int i)` returns reference to the stored object for an index
+* `size()` returns number of stored objects
+
+In the TBB backend, this will use `enumerable_thread_specific` internally. For OpenMP, we implement our own similar
+thread local storage which will allocate and initialize the thread local storage at the first usage for each active
+thread, similar to TBB. The serial backend will merely create a single copy of the temporary object for use. The serial
+backend does not technically need any thread specific storage, but to avoid special casing for this serial backend, we
+use a single copy of histogram. In practice, our benchmarking reports little difference in performance between this
+implementation and the original, which directly accumulated to the output histogram.
+
+With this new structure we will use the following algorithm:
+
+1) Run a `parallel_for` pattern which performs a `histogram` on the input sequence where each thread accumulates into
+its own temporary histogram returned by `__enumerable_thread_local_storage`. The parallelism is divided on the input
+element axis, and we rely upon existing `parallel_for` to implement chunksize and thread composability.
+2) Run a second `parallel_for` over the `histogram` output sequence which accumulates all temporary copies of the
+histogram created within `__enumerable_thread_local_storage` into the output histogram sequence. The parallelism is
+divided on the histogram bin axis, and each chunk loops through all temporary histograms to accumulate into the
+output histogram.
+
+With the overhead associated with this algorithm, the implementation of each `parallel_for` may fallback to a serial
+implementation. It makes sense to include this as part of a future improvement of `parallel_for`, where a user could
+provide extra information in the call to influence details of the backend implementation from the non-background
+specific implementation code.  Details which may be included could include grain size or a functor to determine fallback
+to serial implementation.
+
+### Temporary Memory Requirements
+Both algorithms should have temporary memory complexity of `O(num_bins)`, and specifically will allocate `num_bins`
+output histogram typed elements for each thread used. Depending on the number of input elements, all available threads
+may not be used.
+
+### Computational Complexity
+#### Even Bin API
+The proposed algorithm should have `O(N) + O(num_bins)` operations where `N` is the number of input elements, and
+`num_bins` is the number of histogram bins.
+
+#### Custom Range Bin API
+The proposed algorithm should have `O(N * log(num_bins)) + O(num_bins)` operations where `N` is the number of input
+elements, and `num_bins` is the number of histogram bins.