MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888980102 · doi:10.1002/cpe.4667

Design considerations for GPU‐aware collective communications in MPI

2018· article· en· W2888980102 on OpenAlexafffund
Iman Faraji, Ahmad Afsahi

Bibliographic record

VenueConcurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsComputer scienceCUDAParallel computingMessage passingEfficient energy useProcess (computing)Distributed computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary GPU accelerators have established themselves in the state‐of‐the‐art clusters by offering high performance and energy efficiency. In such systems, efficient inter‐process GPU communication is of paramount importance to application performance. This paper investigates various algorithms in conjunction with the latest GPU features to improve GPU collective operations. First, we propose a GPU Shared Buffer‐aware (GSB) algorithm and a Binomial Tree Based (BTB) algorithm for GPU collectives on single‐GPU nodes. We then propose a hierarchical framework for clusters with multi‐GPU nodes. By studying various combinations of algorithms, we highlight the importance of choosing the right algorithm within each level. The evaluation of our framework on MPI_Allreduce shows promising performance results for large message sizes. To address the shortcoming for small and medium messages, we present the benefit of using the Hyper‐Q feature and the MPS service in jointly using CUDA IPC and host‐staged copy types to perform multiple inter‐process communications. However, we argue that efficient designs are still required to further harness this potential. Accordingly, we propose a static and a dynamic algorithm for MPI_Allgather and MPI_Allreduce and present their effectiveness on various message sizes. Our profiling results indicate that the achieved performance is mainly rooted in overlapping different copy types.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConcurrency and Computation Practice and ExperienceSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207