1. Communication Support for Global Address Space Languages Kathy Yelick, Christian Bell, Dan Bonachea, Yannick Cote, Jason Duell, Paul Hargrove, Parry Husbands, Costin Iancu, Mike Welcome NERSC/LBNL, U.C. Berkeley, and Concordia U.

2. Outline What is a Global Address Space Language? –Programming advantages –Potential performance advantage Application example Possible optimizations LogP Model Cost on current networks

3. Two Programming Models Shared memory +Programming is easier Can build large shared data structures –Machines don’t scale Typically, SMPs < 16 processors, DSM < 128 processors –Performance is hard to predict and control Message passing +Machines easier to build and scale from commodity parts +Programmer has control over performance –Programming is harder Distributed data structures only in the programmers mind Tedious packing/unpacking of irregular data structures Losing programmers with each machine generation

4. Global Address-Space Languages Unified Parallel C (UPC) –Extension of C with distributed arrays –UPC efforts IDA: t3e implementation based on old gcc NERSC: Open64 implementation + generic runtime GMU (documentation) and UMD (benchmarking) Compaq (Alpha cluster and C+MPI compiler (with MTU)) Cray, Sun, and HP (implementations) Intrepid (SGI compiler and t3e compiler) Titanium (Berkeley) –Extension of Java without the JVM –Compiler available from http://titanium.cs.berkeley.eduhttp://titanium.cs.berkeley.edu –Runs on most machines (shared, distributed, and hybrid) –Some experience calling libraries in other languages CAF (Rice and U. Minnesota)

5. Global Address Space Programming Intermediate point between message passing and shared memory Program consists of a collection of processes. –Fixed at program startup time, like MPI Local and shared data, as in shared memory model –But, shared data is partitioned over local processes –Remote data stays remote on distributed memory machines –Processes communicate by reads/writes to shared variables Examples are UPC, Titanium, CAF, Split-C Note: These are not data-parallel languages –Compiler does not have to map the n-way loop to p processors

6. UPC Pointers Pointers may point to shared or private variables –Same syntax for use, just add qualifier shared int *sp; int *lp; –sp is a pointer to an integer residing in the shared memory space. –sp is called a shared pointer (somewhat sloppy). Private pointers are faster -- aliasing common Shared Global address space x: 3 Private sp: lp:

7. Shared Arrays in UPC Shared array elements are spread across the threads shared int x[THREADS] /*One element per thread */ shared int y[3][THREADS] /* 3 elements per thread */ shared int z[3*THREADS] /* 3 elements per thread, cyclic */ In the pictures below –Assume THREADS = 4 –Elements with affinity to processor 0 are marked x y blocked z cyclic This is really a 2D array

8. Example Problem Relaxation on a mesh (structured or not) –Also known as Sparse matrix-vector multiply v Color indicates the owner processor Implementation strategies –Read values of across edges, either local or remote –Prefetch remote –Remote processor writes values (into a ghost) –Remote processor packs values, and ship as a block

9. Communication Requirements One-sided communication –origin can read or write the memory of a target node, with no explicit interaction by the target Low latency for small messages Hide latency with non-blocking accesses (UPC “relaxed”); low software overhead –Overlap communication with communication –Overlap communication with computation Support for bulk, scatter/gather, and collective operations (as in MPI) Portability to a number of architectures

10. Performance Advantage of Global Address Space Languages Sparse matrix-vector multiplication on a T3E UPC model with remote reads is fastest Small message (1 word) Hand-coded prefetching Thanks to Bob Lucas Explanations MPI on the T3E isn’t very good Remote read/write is fundamentally faster than two-sided message passing

11. Optimization Opportunities Introducing non-blocking communication –Currently hand optimized in Titanium code gen –Small message versions of algorithms on IBM SP

12. How Hard is the Compiler Problem? Split-C, UPC, and Titanium experience –Small effort –Relied on lightweight communication Distinguish between –Single thread/process analysis –Global, cross-thread analysis Two-sided communication, gets-to-puts, strong consistency semantics with non-blocking implementation Support for application level optimization key –Bulk communication, scatter-gather, etc.

13. UPCNet: Global pointers (opaque type with rich set of pointer operations), memory management, job startup, etc. GASNet Extended API: Supports put, get, locks, barrier, bulk, scatter/gather Portable Runtime Support Developing a runtime layer that can be easily ported and tuned to multiple architectures. GASNet Core API: Small interface based on “Active Messages” Generic support for UPC, CAF, Titanium Core sufficient for functional implementation Direct implementations of parts of full GASNet

14. Portable Runtime Support Full runtime designed to be used by multiple compilers –NERSC compiler based on Open64 –Intrepid compiler based on gcc Communication layer designed to run on multiple machines –Hardware shared memory (direct load/store) –IBM SP (LAPI) –Myrinet 2K (GM) –Quadrics (Elan3) –Dolphin –VIA and Infiniband in anticipation of future networks –MPI for portability Use communication micro-benchmarks to choose optimizations

15. Core API – Active Messages Super-Lightweight RPC –Unordered, reliable delivery with "user"-provided handlers Request/reply messages –3 sizes: small (<=32 bytes),medium (<=512 bytes), large (DMA) Very general - provides extensibility –Available for implementing compiler-specific operations –scatter-gather or strided memory access, remote allocation, … Already implemented on a number of interconnects –MPI, LAPI, UDP/Ethernet, Via, Myrinet, and others Allow a number of message servicing paradigms –Interrupts, main-thread polling, NIC-thread polling or some combination

16. Extended API – Remote memory operations Want an orthogonal, expressive, high-performance interface –Scalars and Bulk contiguous data –Blocking and non-blocking (returns a handle) –Also have a non-blocking form where the handle is implicit Non-blocking synchronization –Sync on a particular operation (using a handle) –Sync on a list of handles (some or all) –Sync on all pending reads, writes or both (for implicit handles) –Allow polling (trysync) or blocking (waitsync) Misc. characteristics –gets specify a destination memory address (also have register-mem ops) –Remote addresses expressed as (node id, virtual address) –Loopback is supported –Handles need not be explicitly freed –Knows nothing about local UPC threads, but is thread-safe on platforms with POSIX threads

17. Extended API – Remote Memory API for remote gets/puts: void get (void *dest, int node, void *src, int numbytes) handle get_nb (void *dest, int node, void *src, int numbytes) void get_nbi(void *dest, int node, void *src, int numbytes) void put (int node, void *src, void *src, int numbytes) handle put_nb (int node, void *src, void *src, int numbytes) void put_nbi(int node, void *src, void *src, int numbytes) "nb" = non-blocking with explicit handle "nbi" = non-blocking with implicit handle Also have "value" forms for register transfers Recognize and optimize common sizes with macros Extensibility of core API allows easily adding other more complicated access patterns (scatter/gather, strided, etc)

18. Extended API – Remote Memory API for get/put synchronization: Non-blocking ops with explicit handles: int try_syncnb(handle) void wait_syncnb(handle) int try_syncnb_some(handle *, int numhandles) void wait_syncnb_some(handle *, int numhandles) int try_syncnb_all(handle *, int numhandles) void wait_syncnb_all(handle *, int numhandles) Non-blocking ops with implicit handles: int try_syncnbi_gets() void wait_syncnbi_gets() int try_syncnbi_puts() void wait_syncnbi_puts() int try_syncnbi_all() // gets & puts void wait_syncnbi_all()

19. Extended API – Other operations Basic job control –Init, exit –Job layout queries – get node rank & node count –Common user interface for job startup Synchronization –Named split-phase barrier (wait & notify) –Locking support Core API provides "handler-safe" locks for implementing upc_locks May also provide atomic compare&swap or fetch&increment Collective communication –Broadcast, exchange, reductions, scans? Other –Performance monitoring (counters) –Debugging support?

20. Software Overhead Overhead: cost cannot be hidden with overlap –Shown here for 8-byte messages (put or send) –Compare to 1.5 usec for CM5 using Active Messages

21. Small Message Bandwidth If overhead fills all time, there is no potential for overlapping computation 95

22. Latency (Including Overhead)

23. Large Message Bandwidth

24. What to Take Away Opportunity to influence vendors to expose lighter weight communication –Overhead is most important –Then gap (inverse bandwidth) –Then latency Global address space languages –Easier first implementation –Incremental performance tuning Proposal for a GASNet –Two layers: full interface + core

25. End of Slides

26. Performance Characteristics LogP model is useful for understanding small message performance and overlap L: latency across the network o: overhead (sending and receiving busy time) g: gap between messages (1/rate) P: number of processors P M OsOs oror L (latency) g

27. Questions Why Active Messages at the bottom? –Changing the PC is the minimum work What about machines with sophisticated NICs? –Handled by direct implementation of full API Why not MPI-2 one-sided? –Designed for application level –Too much synchronization required for runtime Why not ARMCI? –Similar goals, but not designed for small (non- blocking) messages

28. Implications for Communication Fast small message read/write simplifies programming Non-blocking read/write may be introduced by the programmer or compiler –UPC has “relaxed” to indicate that an access need not happen immediately Bulk and scatter/gather support will be useful (as in MPI) Non-blocking versions may also be useful

29. Overview of NERSC Effort Three components: 1)Compilers –IBM SP platform and PC clusters are main targets –Portable compiler infrasturucture (UPC->C) –Optimization of communication and global pointers 2)Runtime systems for multiple compilers –Allow use by other languages (Titanium and CAF) –And in other UPC compilers –Performance evaluation 3)Applications and benchmarks –Currently looking at NAS PB –Evaluating language and compilers –Plan to do a larger application next year

30. NERSC UPC Compiler Compiler being developed by Costin Iancu –Based on Open64 compiler for C Originally developed at SGI Has IA64 backend with some ongoing development Software available on SourceForge –Can use as C to C translator Can either generate before most optimizations Or after, but this is known to be buggy right now Status –Parses and type-checks UPC –Finishing code generation for UPC->C translator Code generation for SMPs underway

31. Compiler Optimizations Based on lessons learned from –Titanium: UPC in Java –Split-C: one of the UPC predecessors Optimizations –Pointer optimizations: Optimization of phase-less pointers Turn global pointers into local ones –Overlap Split-phase Merge “synchs” at barrier –Aggregation Split-C data on CM-5

32. Possible Optimizations Use of lightweight communication Converting reads to writes (or reverse) Overlapping communication with communication Overlapping communication with computation Aggregating small messages into larger ones

33. MPI vs. LAPI on the IBM SP LAPI generally faster than MPI Non-Blocking (relaxed) faster than blocking

34. Overlapping Computation: IBM SP Nearly all software overhead – no computation overlap –Recall: 36 usec blocking, 12 usec nonblocking

35. Conclusions for IBM SP LAPI is better the MPI Reads/Writes roughly the same cost Overlapping communication with communication (pipelining) is important Overlapping communication with computation –Important if no communication overlap –Minimal value if >= 2 messages overlapped Large messages are still much more efficient Generally noisy data: hard to control

36. Other Machines Observations: –Low latency reveals programming advantage –T3E is still much better than the other networks usec

37. Future Plans This month –Draft of runtime spec –Draft of GASNet spec This year –Initial runtime implementation on shared memory –Runtime implementation on distributed memory (M2K, SP) –NERSC compiler release 1.0b for IBM SP Next year –Compiler release for PC cluster –Development of CLUMP compiler –Begin large application effort –More GASNet implementations –Advanced analysis and optimizations

38. Read/Write Behavior Negligible difference between blocking read and write performance

39. Overlapping Communication Effects of pipelined communication are significant –8 overlapped messages are sufficient to saturate NI Queue depth

40. Overlapping Computation Same experiment, but fix total amount of computation

41. SPMV on Compaq/Quadrics Seeing 15 usec latency for small msgs Data for 1 thread per node

42. Optimization Strategy Optimizations of communication is key to making UPC more usable Two problems: –Analysis of code to determine which optimizations are legal –Use of performance models to select transformations to improve performance Focus on the second problem here

43. Runtime Status Characterizing network performance –Low latency (low overhead) -> programmability Specification of portable runtime –Communication layer (UPC, Titanium, Co-Array Fortran) Built on small “core” layer; interoperability a major concern –Full runtime has memory management, job startup, etc. usec

44. What is UPC? UPC is an explicitly parallel language –Global address space; can read/write remote memory –Programmer control over layout and scheduling –From Split-C, AC, PCP Why a new language? –Easier to use than MPI, especially for program with complicated data structures –Possibly faster on some machines, but current goal is comparable performance p0p1p2

45. Background UPC efforts elsewhere –IDA: t3e implementation based on old gcc –GMU (documentation) and UMC (benchmarking) –Compaq (Alpha cluster and C+MPI compiler (with MTU)) –Cray, Sun, and HP (implementations) –Intrepid (SGI compiler and t3e compiler) UPC Book: –T. El-Ghazawi, B. Carlson, T. Sterling, K. Yelick Three components of NERSC effort 1)Compilers (SP and PC clusters) + optimization (DOE/UPC) 2)Runtime systems for multiple compilers (DOE/Pmodels + NSA) 3)Applications and benchmarks (DOE/UPC)

46. Overlapping Computation on Quadrics 8-Byte non-blocking put on Compaq/Quadrics