Research initiatives for plug-and-play scientific computing

McInnes, Lois Curfman; Dahlgren, Tamara L.; Nieplocha, Jarek; Bernholdt, David E.; Allan, Ben; Armstrong, Rob; Chavarria, Daniel; Elwasif, Wael; Gorton, Ian; Kenny, Joe; Krishan, Manoj; Malony, Allen D.; Norris, Boyana; Ray, Jaideep; Shende, Sameer

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/78/1/012046

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The guidelines deduced in the previous sections, which relate the performance of collective operations to that of other collective operations, could be expanded to more absolute performance 21 guidelines by requiring collective performance to be bound by the performance of a set of predefined, standard algorithms (implemented in MPI). Such more elaborate performance bounds would actually follow by repeated application of meta-rule IV.…”

Section: Constraining Implementationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-Consistent MPI Performance Guidelines

Träff

Gropp

Thakur

2010

IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Message passing using the Message Passing Interface (MPI) is at present the most widely adopted framework for programming parallel applications for distributed-memory and clustered parallel systems.For reasons of (universal) implementability, the MPI standard does not state any specific performance guarantees, but users expect MPI implementations to deliver good and consistent performance in the sense of efficient utilization of the underlying parallel (communication) system. For performance portability reasons, users also naturally desire communication optimizations performed on one parallel platform with one MPI implementation to be preserved when switching to another MPI implementation on another platform.We address the problem of ensuring performance consistency and portability by formulating performance guidelines and conditions that are desirable for good MPI implementations to fulfill. Instead of prescribing a specific performance model (which may be realistic on some systems, under some MPI protocol and algorithm assumptions, etc.), we formulate these guidelines by relating the performance of various aspects of the semantically strongly interrelated MPI standard to each other. Common-sense expectations, for instance, suggest that no MPI function should perform worse than a combination of other MPI functions that implement the same functionality, that no specialized function should perform worse than a more general function that can implement the same functionality, that no function with weak semantic guarantees should perform worse than a similar function with stronger semantics, and so on. Such guidelines may enable implementers to provide higher quality MPI implementations, minimize performance surprises, and eliminate the need for users to make special, non-portable optimizations by hand.We introduce and semi-formalize the concept of self-consistent performance guidelines for MPI, and provide a (non-exhaustive) set of such guidelines in a form that could be automatically verified by benchmarks and experiment-management tools. We present experimental results that show cases where guidelines are not satisfied in common MPI implementations, thereby indicating room for improvement in today's MPI implementations.

show abstract

Section: Constraining Implementationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MPI is an example of a library design that can be retrofitted with and benefit from performance guidelines. Related work in this direction includes quality of service for numerical library components [21], [23]. Because of the complexity of these components, it is not possible to provide the sort of definitive ordering that we propose for MPI communications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%