LogP Model

92 Views

Download Presentation
## LogP Model

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

**LogP Model**Motivation • BSP Model Limited to BW of Network (g) and Load of PE Requires large load per super steps. • Need Better Models for Portable Algorithms • Converging Hardware • Independent from Network Topology • Programming Models • Assumption • Number of PE much bigger than data elements**Parameters**• L: Latency • delay on the network • o: Overhead on PE • g: gap • minimum interval between consecutive messages (due to bandwidth) • P: Number of PEs Note: L,o,g : independent from P or node distances Message length: short message L,o,g are per word or per message of fixed length k word message: k short messages (k*o overhead) L independent from message length**Parameters (continue)**• Bandwidth: 1/g * unit message length • Number of messages to send or receive for each PE: L/g • Send to Receive total time : L+2o • if o >> g, ignore o • Similar to BSP except no synchronization step • No communication computation overlapping • Speed-up factor at most two**P0**P5 P2 P6 P7 g p0 o L p1 Broadcast Optimal Broad cast tree 0 P1 P3 P4 10 14 18 22 20 24 24 P=8, L=6, g=4, o=2**Optimal Sum**• Given time T, how many items we can add? • Approach: recursive • At root, if T <= L+2o use a single PE (can add T+1 items) • If T > L+2o, • Root should have data ready at T, • and sender must have sum ready at T - L - 2o - 1 • Recursively construct the sum tree at the sender • If T - g > L+2o, Root also can receive data, and compute the sum with T-g as the root.**Applications**FFT on the Butterfly network • Data Placement • cyclic layout - First log n/P local comm, last log P global • blocked layout - First log P global comm, remaining local • hybrid: After log (n/P) iteration, re-map to cyclic so that remaining can be also local Communication time: g* (n/P**2) (P-1) + L each PE has n/P data, each of 1/P goes to each other PE Total time is (1+g/logn) optimal • All to all Communication schedule • Approach 1: each PE sends PE1, PE2, … => bottle neck at PE1, PE2 in this order • Approach 2 (staggered re-map) -- no congestion • PE1 sends PE2, PE3,.. • PE2 sends PE3, PE4, etc**Implementation on CM5**• CM: • 33MHz • Fat Trees • Global Control for scan/prefix/broadcast • one CM-5 3.2 MFLOPs • FFT on local: 2.8 - 2.2 MFLOPs (cache effect) • each cycle: • multiply and add : 4.5 us • o: 2us • L: 6us • g: 4us • load ans store overhaed per cycle 1us • communication time : n/P max (1us + 2o, g) + L • bottleneck: processing and overhead, not bw**LU decomposition**• Data arrangement critical**Matching machine with real machines**Average Distance topology independent usually works for n=1024 nodes. The difference between average distance and max distance are not such different**Potential Concerns**• Algorithmic concern • Theory? • Too complex? • Communication concerns • how to use trivial comm such as local exchange • topology dependencies?**Comparison with BSP**• Length of superstep • message not usable till next step • special hardware for sync • virtual/physical large, context switching may be expensive