Topology-Aware GPU Selection on Multi-GPU Nodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GPU accelerators have successfully established themselves in modern HPC clusters due to their high performance and energy efficiency. To increase the GPU computational power in a cluster node and tackle larger problems, multi-GPU nodes have become the platform of choice for scientific applications. In a multi-GPU node, GPU devices are interconnected together via different communication channels. Thus, intranode inter-process communications among GPUs may traverse different paths with different latency and bandwidth capacity. As the number of GPUs within a multi-GPU node increases, the topology of GPU interconnects becomes more hierarchical, effectively increasing the heterogeneity of the GPU communication channels. In this paper, we provide evidence that the performance of different intranode GPU communication channels can be considerably different from each other. This is specially true for larger message sizes. Taking this into account, our goal in this work is to efficiently assign the available GPU devices on a multi-GPU node to MPI processes in order to improve the GPU-to-GPU communication performance. We tackle this challenge by proposing a topology-aware GPU selection scheme. Our scheme is capable of efficiently mapping MPI processes to the available intranode GPU devices, in a way that more intensive inter-process GPU communications take place on the more efficient communication channels. Our experimental results show that our topology-aware GPU selection scheme can improve the communication performance of the microbenchmarks with different communication patterns, specifically those with weighted and asymmetrical communications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".