Thinking in Parallel – Task Decomposition New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Shared-Memory Model and Threads Intel Software College Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 2.
Advertisements

ORGANIZATION The Key to Success in School BACKPACK Put things where they belong. –Pencils, books folders Clean it out daily.
May 2008 Web interChange - Advanced Presented by EDS Provider Relations Field Consultants Insert photo here.
This presentation and its materials are based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement Number HRD Any.
HOST: Put your school logo here TEAM ORIENTATION.
Copyright Dr. M. Myra S. White, Harvard University, 2009 Henry Tam Analysis.
1 As Class Convenes u Pick up your team’s folder; remove disk & Course Activity Impact Matrix material; and sign attendance sheet u Get your notebook and.
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Why Parallel? Why Now? Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 1.
GPS 2011 Slide - 1 COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES APAC Discussion.
© 2009 WGBH Educational Foundation. Leading Hands-On Science Activities.
Thinking in Parallel – Pipelining New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR.
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Parallel Decomposition Methods Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 2.
Running a Competitive Event HOSA Advisors: Everything you need to know.
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Finding Parallelism Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 3.
1 TenStep Project Management Process ™ Copyright © 2004 TenStep, Inc The TenStep Advantage.
Recognizing Potential Parallelism Intel Software College Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 1.
Parallelism Processing more than one instruction at a time. Pipelining
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Predicting Parallel Performance Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 10.
B121 Chapter 3 Learning Skills. Reading and note taking Identify your own reading strategies A reading strategy is an operation you put into action according.
Copyright © 2010 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel and Intel  Education are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its.
Copyright © 2008 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and the Intel Teach Program are trademarks.
Recognizing Potential Parallelism Introduction to Parallel Programming Part 1.
Copyright © 2009 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and the Intel Teach Program are trademarks.
Copyright © 2006, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel® Teach Program Thinking with Technology Course © 2007 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
Stages of Processing.  When a computer is given instructions, a series of tasks must take place in order for a result to be accomplished  To accomplish.
Copyright © 2009 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and the Intel Teach Program are trademarks.
Boxed Processor Stocking Plans Server & Mobile Q1’08 Product Available through February’08.
INTEL CONFIDENTIAL Shared Memory Considerations Introduction to Parallel Programming – Part 4.
Presentation 31 – Multicore, Multiprocessing, Multithreading, and Multitasking. When discussing modern PCs, the term “Multi” is thrown around a lot as.
Thinking in Parallel – Implementing In Code New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR.
Updated September 2011 Medical Applications in Nanotechnology Nano Gold Sensors Lab.
Geo-Needs An NSF funded project to explore barriers and opportunities for enhancing geoscience instruction at two-year colleges and minority- serving institutions.
Today’s Agenda 1.Collect Pre-Lab 3 2.Alice Programming Assignment 3.Built-in Functions 4.Expressions 5.Control Structure 6.Assign pair programming teams.
Programs of the Intel® Education Initiative are funded by the Intel Foundation and Intel. Copyright © 2007, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel,
Copyright © 2008 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and the Intel Teach Program are trademarks.
Installation of Storage Foundation for Windows High Availability 5.1 SP2 1 Daniel Schnack Principle Technical Support Engineer.
Copyright © 2008, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. Intel, the Intel logo, Intel Education Initiative, and Intel Teach Program are trademarks of.
Thinking in Parallel – Domain Decomposition New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR.
Leader Interviews Name, PhD Title, Organization University This project is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under award numbers ANT
UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM t Selection and Employment of Consultants Negotiations with Consultants; Monitoring Performance of Consultants; Resolving Disputes.
 Wind Power TEAK – Traveling Engineering Activity Kits Partial support for the TEAK Project was provided by the National Science Foundation's Course,
Engaging Visitors in Nanotechnology & Society
Putting First Things First Work First, Then Play.
Thinking in Parallel - Introduction New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR.
To Do List 3/14 Items Needed Textbook Daily Science Journal Notebook Pen or Pencil Paper Agenda Opening: Mini Activator Work Session: Guided Notes Closing:
1 Parallel Processing Fundamental Concepts. 2 Selection of an Application for Parallelization Can use parallel computation for 2 things: –Speed up an.
The TEAK Project 1 TEAK/TA Teaching Workshop Session 3: Managing Hands-On Activities Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo, Mechanical Engineering Dr. Margaret Bailey,
Discussion and Conclusion
Nanotechnology & Society
Elliptic Partial Differential Equations – Direct Method
Nanotechnology & Society
People Who Did the Study Universities they are affiliated with
Title of session For Event Plus Presenters 12/5/2018.
Geo-Needs An NSF funded project to explore barriers and opportunities for enhancing geoscience instruction at two-year colleges and minority-serving institutions.
ე ვ ი ო Ш Е Т И О А С Д Ф К Ж З В Н М W Y U I O S D Z X C V B N M
Quiz Questions Parallel Programming Parallel Computing Potential
Numerical Methods Golden Section Search Method - Example
Numerical Methods Newton’s Method for One -Dimensional Optimization - Example
Encourage your parents to come to PTC’s tonight!
Ways of displaying Function “stuff”
Quiz Questions Parallel Programming Parallel Computing Potential
Quiz Questions Parallel Programming Parallel Computing Potential
Quiz Questions Parallel Programming Parallel Computing Potential
BLOW MINDS! TEACH PHYSICS
BLOW MINDS! TEACH MATH TEACHING: WORTH IT IN MORE WAYS THAN YOU MIGHT THINK... Most people underestimate teacher salaries by $10,000-$30,000 Most teaching.
BLOW MINDS! TEACH CHEMISTRY
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #XXXXXX. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations.
BLOW MINDS! TEACH SCIENCE
Project Title: I. Research Overview and Outcome
Serena Alderson Manager of School Partnerships Carnegie Learning, Inc
Presentation transcript:

Thinking in Parallel – Task Decomposition New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge in partnership with Intel Corp. and NM EPSCoR

Copyrights and Acknowledgments Intel and the Intel logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States or other countries. New Mexico EPSCoR Program is funded in part by the National Science Foundation award # and the State of New Mexico. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. For questions about the Supercomputing Challenge, a 501(c)3 organization, contact us at: challenge.nm.org

Agenda Definition review of task decomposition Steps involved in task decomposition Conceptual example of task decomposition Hands-on task decomposition parallel activity

Methodology Domain decomposition – Used when the same operation is performed on a large number of similar data items. Task decomposition – Used when some different operations can be performed at the same time. Pipelining – Used when there are sequential operations on a large amount of data.

Task (Functional) Decomposition Identify data dependencies between tasks. Group tasks according to dependencies. Assign groups to processors.

Task Decomposition – Dependencies f s r q h g Edges (arrows) depict data dependencies between tasks. Is there a logical way to assign the tasks to separate cpu’s?

Task Decomposition – Task Grouping

Task Decomposition – CPU Assignment

Task Decomposition – Step 1

Task Decomposition – Step 2

Task Decomposition – Step 3

Task Decomposition – Step 4

Hands-on Activity 1 – Box Stuffing Your team will perform a series of tasks. * See handout for detailed instructions

Activity 1 – Setup Give all items to each group.

Activity 1 – Execution 1.Select one team member to be the processor. 2.After all of the processors are given the instructions, start timer. 3.The processor should perform these steps as quickly as possible: Put pen (used for name tag) and pencil of a different color in box. Put stapled papers in folder. Attach sticker to outside of box. Fill out name tag in pen. Collate papers (in ROYGBIV or numeric order) and staple together. Put folder in box. Paper clip name tag to folder. 4.Stop timer.

Activity 1 – Debrief Was there any wasted effort? If so, discuss possible reasons. If not, discuss possible reasons.

Activity 2 – Discovering Dependencies Your team will identify dependencies between tasks.

Activity 2 – Setup Give task list and a pair of scissors to each group.

Activity 2 – Execution 1.Cut task list into strips. 2.Layout all task strips of paper on table. 3.Organize the task strips so that there would be minimal wasted effort if the tasks were performed in that order. 4.Explain how your group organized the list.

Activity 2 – Debrief Did every group arrive at the same task order? If so, what were the key conclusions in common? If not, discuss possible reasons for the differences.

Activity 3 – Box Stuffing with Dependencies Your team will perform tasks in the order dictated by the identified dependencies.

Activity 3 – Setup Give all items to each group.

Activity 3 – Execution 1.Pick a different team member to be the processor. 2.After all of the processors are given the instructions, start timer. 3.The processor should perform the tasks in the chosen order. 4.Stop timer.

Activity 3 – Debrief 1.Was there less wasted time or effort than in activity 1? 2.Which group was the fastest? 3.Was that group fastest due to the speed of its processor, or the task order? 4.Are there some tasks, or sets of tasks, that could be done simultaneously (in parallel)?

Activity 4 – Identifying Opportunities for Parallelism Your team will identify opportunities for parallelism, subject to dependencies

Activity 4 – Setup Give task list to each group.

Activity 4 – Execution 1.Lay out all task strips of paper on table. 2.Separate the tasks into groups that can be performed simultaneously. 3.Organize the tasks within each group according to the dependencies. 4.Explain how your group organized the list.

Activity 4 – Debrief Did every group arrive at the same task organization? If so, what were the key conclusions in common? If not, discuss possible reasons for the differences.

Activity 5 – Box Stuffing with Parallel Dependencies Your team will execute tasks with dependencies and parallelism, assigning sets of tasks to different team members.

Activity 5 – Setup Give all items to each group.

Activity 5 – Execution 1.After all of the processors are given the instructions, start timer. 2.Perform the tasks in the chosen order, and working in parallel to the extent possible (more than one person in the team can be working at the same time). 3.Stop timer.

Activity 5 – Debrief 1.Was this activity completed faster than activity 3? 2.Were the team members equally occupied? 3.Which group was the fastest? 4.Was that group fastest due to the speed of its members, or the task order?