Design considerations for GPU‐aware collective communications in MPI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".