Efficient Dynamic Local Enumeration for HPF

Denissen, Will; Sips, Henk

doi:10.1007/3-540-45574-4_23

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, when the compiler selects the wrong enumeration method, the inner loop would only loop once and the worst-case loop overhead will be measured, as shown in the columns marked with the ellipses. This can be solved by using a dynamic scheme that selects the enumeration order of indices at run-time [7]. With such an improvement in the compiler, the run-time system would then always select the largest loop as the inner loop, i.e.…”

Section: Initializing An Arraymentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding performance bugs with the TNO HPF benchmark suite

Denissen¹,

Sips

2002

Concurrency and Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYHPF has been designed to provide portable performance on distributed memory machines. An important aspect of portable performance is the behavior of the available HPF compilers. Ideally, a programmer may expect comparable performance between different HPF compilers, given the same program and the same machine. To test the performance portability between compilers, we have designed a special benchmark suite, called the TNO HPF benchmark suite. It consists of a set of HPF programs, that test various aspects of efficient parallel code generation. The benchmark suite consists of a number of template programs that are used to generate test programs with different array sizes, alignments, distributions, and iteration spaces. It ranges from very simple assignments to more complex assignments like triangular iteration spaces, convex iteration spaces, coupled subscripts, and indirection arrays. We have run the TNO HPF benchmark suite on three compilers: the PREPARE prototype compiler, the PGI-HPF compiler, and the GMD Adaptor HPF compiler. Results show performance differences that can be quite large (up to two orders of magnitude for the same test program). Closer inspection reveals that the origin of most differences in performance is due to differences in local enumeration and storage of distributed array elements.

show abstract

Section: Initializing An Arraymentioning

confidence: 99%