Exploiting wavefront parallelism on large-scale shared-memory multiprocessors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wavefront parallelism, in which parallelism is limited to hyperplanes in an iteration space, can arise when compilers apply tiling to loop nests to enhance locality. Previous approaches for scheduling wavefront parallelism focused on maximizing parallelism; balancing workloads, and reducing synchronization. In this paper, we show that on large-scale shared-memory multiprocessors, locality is a crucial factor. We make the distinction between intratile and intertile locality and show that as the number of processors grows, intertile locality becomes more important. We consider and experimentally evaluate existing strategies for scheduling wavefront parallelism. We show that dynamic self-scheduling can be efficiently used on a small number of processors, but performs poorly at large scale because it does not enhance intertile locality. By contrast, static scheduling strategies enhance intertile locality for small tiles, maintaining parallelism and resulting in better performance at large scale. Results from a Convex SPP1000 multiprocessor demonstrate the importance of taking intertile locality into account. Static scheduling outperforms dynamic self-scheduling by a factor of up to 2.3 on 30 processors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".