MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013002675 · doi:10.1109/icpp.2012.15

Added Concurrency to Improve MPI Performance on Multicore

2012· article· en· W2013002675 on OpenAlexaff
Humaira Kamal, Alan Wagner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingConcurrencyMulti-core processorContext switchImplementationCacheMessage Passing InterfaceDistributed computingScheduling (production processes)Message passingContext (archaeology)Synchronization (alternating current)Operating systemProgramming languageComputer networkChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MPI implementations typically equate an MPI process with an OS-process, resulting in a coarse-grain programming model where MPI processes are bound to the physical cores. Fine-Grain (FG-MPI) extends the MPICH2 implementation of MPI and implements an integrated runtime system to allow multiple MPI processes to execute concurrently inside an OS-process. FG-MPI's integrated approach makes it possible to add more concurrency than available parallelism, while minimizing the overheads related to context switches, scheduling and synchronization. In this paper we evaluate the benefits of added concurrency for cache awareness and message size and show that performance gains are possible by using FG-MPI to adjust the grain-size of a program to better fit the cache and potential advantages in passing smaller versus larger messages. We evaluate the use of FG-MPI on the complete set of the NAS parallel benchmarks over large problem sizes, where we show significant performance improvement (20%-30%) for three of the eight benchmarks. We discuss the characteristics of the benchmarks with regards to trade-offs between the added costs and benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207