Exploring Compiler Optimization Opportunities for the OpenMP 4.× Accelerator Model on a POWER8+GPU Platform
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While GPUs are increasingly popular for high-performance computing, optimizing the performance of GPU programs is a time-consuming and non-trivial process in general. This complexity stems from the low abstraction level of standard GPU programming models such as CUDA and OpenCL: programmers are required to orchestrate low-level operations in order to exploit the full capability of GPUs. In terms of software productivity and portability, a more attractive approach would be to facilitate GPU programming by providing high-level abstractions for expressing parallel algorithms.OpenMP is a directive-based shared memory parallel programming model and has been widely used for many years. From OpenMP 4.0 onwards, GPU platforms are supported by extending OpenMP's high-level parallel abstractions with accelerator programming. This extension allows programmers to write GPU programs in standard C/C++ or Fortran languages, without exposing too many details of GPU architectures.However, such high-level parallel programming strategies generally impose additional program optimizations on compilers, which could result in lower performance than fully hand-tuned code with low-level programming models. To study potential performance improvements by compiling and optimizing high-level GPU programs, in this paper, we 1) evaluate a set of OpenMP 4.× benchmarks on an IBM POWER8 and NVIDIA Tesla GPU platform and 2) conduct a comparable performance analysis among hand-written CUDA and automatically-generated GPU programs by the IBM XL and clang/LLVM compilers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it