The Design of OpenMP Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OpenMP has been very successful in exploiting structured parallelism in applications. With increasing application complexity, there is a growing need for addressing irregular parallelism in the presence of complicated control structures. This is evident in various efforts by the industry and research communities to provide a solution to this challenging problem. One of the primary goals of OpenMP 3.0 is to define a standard dialect to express and efficiently exploit unstructured parallelism. This paper presents the design of the OpenMP tasking model by members of the OpenMP 3.0 tasking sub-committee which was formed for this purpose. The paper summarizes the efforts of the sub-committee (spanning over two years) in designing, evaluating and seamlessly integrating the tasking model into the OpenMP specification. In this paper, we present the design goals and key features of the tasking model, including a rich set of examples and an in-depth discussion of the rationale behind various design choices. We compare a prototype implementation of the tasking model with existing models, and evaluate it on a wide range of applications. The comparison shows that the OpenMP tasking model provides expressiveness, flexibility, and huge potential for performance and scalability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".