Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6134869
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 23, 20262026-05-23T17:24:35+00:00 2026-05-23T17:24:35+00:00

I came across this thread Turning off coalescing in Nvidia Forum where it is

  • 0

I came across this thread Turning off coalescing in Nvidia Forum where it is stated that “So far setting a memory pointer/array to “volatile” seems to help for massively random access. (Gives 50% more performance ?!)”.

I am doing finite difference computation (3D Stencil Computation) on GPU (Fermi) using CUDA and want to improve the performance of the computation. Since accessing the z axis of 3D array is random (3D array is laid in Z,Y,X from slow to fast), I feel like using volatile would be a better choice. Currently I am using shared memory

__shared__ float 2dplane[32][32]

When I tried using volatile as

volatile float **plane = 2dplane;

, I get this error

error: a value of type “float ()[16]” cannot be used to initialize an
entity of type “volatile float *
“

Can anyone tell me how to use volatile on 2d array[code example will be helpful]. Moreover, it would be great if someone tells me how much performance gain can I expect.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-23T17:24:36+00:00Added an answer on May 23, 2026 at 5:24 pm

    Your shared memory array isn’t 2D and isn’t declared volatile, which is why the assignment statement is illegal.

    As for the volatile suggestion from the NVIDIA boards, all I can say is that you shouldn’t believe everything your read, because it is nonsense (Google “skybuck flying” if you dare). The volatile keyword controls how and whether the compiler enforces writes from register to memory. It will have no beneficial effect on memory throughput.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I came across this thread Node.js HTTPS Secure Error which mentions that the tls
I came across this thread when I was looking for a solution, but it
I came across this question on an interview questions thread. Here is the question:
I came across a few articles like this one , which suggest that some
I'm trying to read about Ruby performance, and came across this SO thread ,
I came across this thread: Is there a function like array_merge in PHP in
I came across this thread on SO which talks about PHP code coverage tools
I came across this interesting paragraph in the Boost thread documentation today: void wait(boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>&
So I came across this thread and it works very well - How to
I came across this statement while reading difference between Thread and Process. Please explain.

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.