Kernel Launch & Occupancy Basics: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Kernel Launch & Occupancy Basics centers on theoretical vs achieved occupancy, latency hiding score, and warp starvation rate. The objective is to connect profiler evidence to root-cause mechanism and release-safe action.

GPU debug is mechanism-first. Lock revisions, isolate first failing workload, then prove one hypothesis before applying broad tuning.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Kernel Launch & Occupancy Basics

theoretical vs achieved occupancy, latency hiding score, and warp starvation rate regressed
        |
  reproducible on replay?
      /              \
    no                yes
    |                  |
env/test noise    counter triage
                   |
             compute-bound or memory-bound?
                /                  \
             compute            memory/interconnect
             issue stalls       cache/NoC/DRAM stalls

Stop at first failing mechanism, then patch.

1. Freeze workload seed, compiler, driver, firmware, and hardware tags.

2. Identify first failing metric and where it appears in timeline.

3. Classify bottleneck domain: scheduler, execution, memory, interconnect, or thermal.

4. Build one focused reproducer that isolates dominant mechanism.

5. Patch smallest owner-controlled fix.

6. Re-run quality, performance, and stability matrix.

Review memo template

GPU DESIGN REVIEW MEMO - GPU Programming Model & SIMT / Kernel Launch & Occupancy Basics

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: theoretical vs achieved occupancy, latency hiding score, and warp starvation rate
   - Failing workload or scene: <name>
   - Impacted stage: <warp scheduling, memory hierarchy, graphics stage, interconnect>
   - Revision tags: <kernel/driver/compiler/firmware/hardware>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Occupancy is bounded by register count, shared memory, warps/SM limits, and block shape; higher occupancy helps hide latency until another bottleneck dominates.
   - Competing hypotheses: <divergence, memory coalescing, scheduling, thermal throttling>
   - Missing evidence: <counter capture, trace, topology heatmap, timing report>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <kernel/config/RTL/policy update>
   - Expected movement: <throughput, frame-time tail, perf-per-watt>
   - Regression risk: scheduler fairness, cache contention, thermal behavior, software compatibility

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: occupancy report, register/shared-memory budget table, and profiler timeline
   - Required owners: kernel optimization owner, compiler owner, GPU performance lead
   - Final decision: ship, bounded rollout, rollback, or escalate

GPU deep dive

SIMT abstractions are productive only when launch geometry and divergence behavior align with hardware.

Concept diagram

PROGRAMMING MODEL STACK

host API -> kernel launch -> grid -> block -> warp -> lane

Metric graph

KERNEL EFFICIENCY TREND

warp execution efficiency  ██████████
memory replay ratio        █████
idle issue slots           ███

Reports and artifacts

• occupancy report

• warp efficiency summary

• kernel launch audit

• replay counter snapshot

Mini case study

A block-size bump improved theoretical occupancy but increased replay and reduced achieved throughput by 22%.

Debug branches

• Map launch geometry to active warps per SM

• Correlate branch masks with divergence hotspots

• Validate occupancy against achieved IPC

Senior review question

Ask: which metric and benchmark pairing proves this topic is truly closed in production context?

Key takeaways

• Always pair micro-kernel metrics with end-to-end workload impact.

• Lock toolchain, driver, and launch metadata before comparing performance results.

Common pitfalls

• Optimizing occupancy without checking memory-system saturation.

• Comparing profiler captures from different driver or compiler builds.

• Declaring wins without reproducible accuracy and performance gates.

Principal GPU review addendum

Kernel Launch & Occupancy Basics is not just a definition to memorize. In a real GPU program it becomes an interaction between software shape, compiler mapping, warp execution, memory movement, interconnect policy, and physical limits. The first senior move is to name which layer is being exercised before interpreting a counter.

Occupancy is bounded by register count, shared memory, warps/SM limits, and block shape; higher occupancy helps hide latency until another bottleneck dominates. This mechanism matters because GPUs are throughput machines: a small inefficiency repeated across lanes, warps, SMs, frames, or dispatches can dominate product performance even when a unit-level diagram looks balanced.

Use theoretical vs achieved occupancy, latency hiding score, and warp starvation rate as an entry point, not as the conclusion. A metric shift only becomes actionable after it is tied to a workload slice, a profiler capture, an architectural path, and a reproducible artifact such as occupancy report, register/shared-memory budget table, and profiler timeline.

The programming model is a contract between algorithm intent and SIMT execution reality. The review posture is therefore evidence-first: explain what the kernel or graphics workload asked for, how the GPU mapped it onto hardware, where useful work stopped, and which owner can change the smallest boundary safely.

In review, insist on a concrete chain from workload to hardware behavior: workload shape -> compiler/runtime mapping -> warp or pipeline behavior -> memory/fabric pressure -> measured product impact. That chain prevents generic GPU tuning advice from replacing engineering evidence.