1. A comparison of CC-SAS, MP and SHMEM on SGI Origin2000

2. Three Programming Models  CC-SAS –Linear address space for shared memory  MP –Communicate with other processes explicitly via message passing interface  SHMEM –Via get and put primitives

3. Platforms:  Tightly-coupled multiprocessors –SGI Origin2000: a cache-coherent distributed shared memory machine  Less tightly-coupled clusters –A cluster of workstations connected by ethernet

4. Purpose  Compare the three programming models on Origin2000, a modern 64-processor hardware cache-coherent machine –We focus on scientific applications that access data regularly or predictably.

5. Questions to be answered  Can parallel algorithms be structured in the same way for good performance in all three models?  If there are substantial differences in performance under three models, where are the key bottlenecks?  Do we need to change the data structures or algorithms substantially to solve those bottlenecks?

6. Applications and Algorithms  FFT –All-to-all communication(regular)  Ocean –Nearest-neighbor communication  Radix –All-to-all communication(irregular)  LU –One-to-many communication

7. Performance Result

8. question:  Why MP is much worse than CC-SAS and SHMEM?

9. Analysis: Execution time = BUSY + LMEM + RMEM + SYNC where BUSY: CPU computation time LMEM: CPU stall time for local cache miss RMEM: CPU stall time for sending/receiving remote data SYNC: CPU time spend at synchronization events

10. Where does the time go in MP?

11. Improving MP performance  Remove extra data copy –Allocate all data involved in communication in shared address space  Reduce SYNC time –Use lock-free queue management instead in communication

12. Speedups under Improved MP

13. Why does CC-SAS perform best?

14.  Extra packing/unpacking operation in MP and SHMEM  Extra packet queue management in MP  …

15. Speedups for Ocean

16. Speedups for Radix

17. Speedups for LU

18. Conclusions  Good algorithm structures are portable among programming models.  MP is much worse than CC-SAS and SHMEM under hardware-coherent machine. However, we can achieve similar performance if extra data copy and queue synchronization are well solved.  Something about programmability

19. Future work  How about those applications that indeed have irregular, unpredictable and naturally fine-grained data access and communication patterns?  How about software-based coherent machines (i.e. clusters)?