MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944778070 · doi:10.1145/3343211.3343219

Implementing efficient message logging protocols as MPI application extensions

2019· preprint· en· W2944778070 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kiril Dichev, Dimitrios S. Nikolopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsComputer scienceRollbackLoggingImplementationMessage passingProtocol (science)Distributed computingDatabaseSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Message logging protocols are enablers of local rollback, a more efficient alternative to global rollback, for fault tolerant MPI applications. Until now, message logging MPI implementations have incurred the overheads of a redesign and redeployment of an MPI library, as well as continued performance penalties across various kernels. Successful research efforts for message logging implementations do exist, but not a single one of them can be easily deployed today by more than a few experts. In contrast, in this work we build efficient message logging capabilities on top of an MPI library with no message logging capabilities; we do so for two different send-deterministic HPC kernels, one with a global exchange pattern (CG), and one with a neighbour exchange pattern (LULESH). While our library of choice ULFM detects failure and recovers MPI communicators, we build on that to then restore the intra- and inter-process data consistency of both applications. This task follows a similar pattern across these kernels, and we present our methodology in a generic way. In the end, our extensions provide message logging capabilities for each kernel, without the need for an actual message logging runtime underneath. On the performance side, we eliminate event logging for these kernels, and design a flexible user-defined hybrid between global and local rollback. Our extensions span a few hundred lines of code for each kernel, are open-sourced, and enable local and global rollback after process failure.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207