1. Thoughts on Shared Caches Jeff Odom University of Maryland

2. University of Maryland 2 A Brief History of Time First there was the single CPU –Memory tuning new field –Large improvements possible –Life is good Then came multiple CPUs –Rethink memory interactions –Life is good (again) Now there’s multi-core on multi-CPU –Rethink memory interactions (again) –Life will be good (we hope)

3. University of Maryland 3 SMP vs. CMP Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) –Single CPU core per chip –All caches private to each CPU –Communication via main memory Chip Multiprocessing (CMP) –Multiple CPU cores on one integrated circuit –Private L1 cache –Shared second-level and higher caches

4. University of Maryland 4 CMP Features Thread-level parallelism –One thread per core –Same as SMP Shared higher-level caches –Reduced latency –Improved memory bandwidth Non-homogeneous data decomposition –Not all cores are created equal

5. University of Maryland 5 CMP Challenges New optimizations –False sharing/private data copies –Delaying reads until shared Fewer locations to cache data –More chance of data eviction in high- throughput computations Hybrid SMP/CMP systems –Connect multiple multi-core nodes –Composite cache sharing scheme –Cray XT4 2 cores/chip 2 chips/node

6. University of Maryland 6 False Sharing Occurs when two CPUs access different data structures on the same cache line

7. University of Maryland 7 False Sharing (SMP)

8. University of Maryland 8 False Sharing (SMP)

9. University of Maryland 9 False Sharing (SMP)

10. University of Maryland 10 False Sharing (SMP)

11. University of Maryland 11 False Sharing (SMP)

12. University of Maryland 12 False Sharing (SMP)

13. University of Maryland 13 False Sharing (SMP)

14. University of Maryland 14 False Sharing (SMP)

15. University of Maryland 15 False Sharing (CMP)

16. University of Maryland 16 False Sharing (CMP)

17. University of Maryland 17 False Sharing (CMP)

18. University of Maryland 18 False Sharing (CMP)

19. University of Maryland 19 False Sharing (CMP)

20. University of Maryland 20 False Sharing (CMP)

21. University of Maryland 21 False Sharing (CMP)

22. University of Maryland 22 False Sharing (CMP)

23. University of Maryland 23 False Sharing (SMP vs. CMP) With private L2 (SMP), modification of co-resident data structures results in trips to main memory In CMP, false sharing impact is limited by the shared L2 Latency from L1 to L2 much less than L2 to main memory

24. University of Maryland 24 Maintaining Private Copies Two threads modifying the same cache line will want to move data to their L1 Simultaneous reading/modification causes thrashing between L1’s and L2 Keeping a copy of data in separate cache line keeps data local to the processor Updates to shared data occur less often

25. University of Maryland 25 Delaying Reads Until Shared Often the results from one thread are pipelined to another Typical signal-based sharing: –Thread 1 accesses data, is pulled into L1 T1 –T1 modifies data –T1 signals T2 that data is ready –T2 requests data, forcing eviction from L1 T1 into L2 Shared –Data is now shared L1 line not filled in, wasting space

26. University of Maryland 26 Delaying Reads Until Shared Optimized sharing: –T1 pulls data into L1 T1 as before –T1 modifies data –T1 waits until it has other data to fill the line with, then uses that to push data into L2 Shared –T1 signals T2 that data is ready –T1 and T2 now share data in L2 Shared Eviction is side-effect of loading line

27. University of Maryland 27 Hybrid Models Most CMP systems will have SMP as well –Large core density not feasible –Want to balance processing with cache sizes Different access patterns –Co-resident cores act different than cores of different nodes –Results may differ depending on which processor pairs you get

28. University of Maryland 28 Experimental Framework Simics simulator –Full system simulation –Hot-swappable components –Configurable memory system Reconfigurable cache hierarchy Roll-your-own coherency protocol Simulated environment –SunFire 6800, Solaris 10 –Single CPU board, 4 UltraSPARC IIi –Uniform main memory access –Similar to actual hardware on hand

29. University of Maryland 29 Experimental Workload NAS Parallel Benchmarks –Well known, standard applications –Various data access patterns (conjugate gradient, multi-grid, etc.) OpenMP-optimized –Already converted from original serial versions –MPI-based versions also available Small (W) workloads –Simulation framework slows down execution –Will examine larger (A-C) versions to verify tool correctness

30. University of Maryland 30 Workload Results Some show marked improvement (CG)… …others show marginal improvement (FT)… …still others show asymmetrical loads (BT)… …and asymmetrical improvement (EP)

31. University of Maryland 31 The Next Step How to get data and tools for programmers to deal with this? –Hardware –Languages –Analysis tools Specialized hardware counters –Which CPU forced eviction –Are cores or nodes contending for data –Coherency protocol diagnostics

32. University of Maryland 32 The Next Step CMP-aware parallel languages –Language-based framework easier to perform automatic optimizations –OpenMP, UPC likely candidates –Specialized partitioning may be needed to leverage shared caches Implicit data partitioning Current languages distribute data uniformly –May require extensions (hints) in the form of language directives

33. University of Maryland 33 The Next Step Post-execution analysis tools –Identify memory hotspots –Provide hints on restructuring Blocking Execution interleaving –Convert SMP-optimized code for use in CMP –Dynamic instrumentation opportunities

34. University of Maryland 34 Questions?