If all my processors share the same memory, is using MPI anyhow useful, instead of going full OpenMP ?
If you never intend to scale your application beyond a single shared-memory node, then OpenMP parallelisation might be relatively easier to implement in comparison to MPI parallelisation. Relatively, because the apparent simplicity of OpenMP is very misleading. In order to utilise the full ability of modern shared-memory machines, one should maximise data locality and use lots of private data, effectively treating them (the machines) as distributed memory systems. Also, the most prevailing error in shared memory programming are data races and those in times could be very hard to debug, even when armed with special thread-checker tools. Data races are virtually absent in MPI programming since processes do not share data.
That said, even when MPI processes communicate using shared memory, that is still slower than directly accessing the shared memory in a threaded process. Also some algorithms require some global data, which takes more memory with MPI where each process has to hold a copy of that data. This is curable in MPI-3.0 using shared-memory windows with single-sided operations, but that's somehow cumbersome (though portable). Also there are research efforts to reduce the intra-node communication overhead to as little as possible and some are very successful.
I need to write an application that hashes words from a dictionary to make WPA pre-shared-keys. This is my thesis for a "Networking Security" course. The application needs to be parallel for increased performance. I have some experience with MPI from my IT studies but I would like to tie it up with CUDA. The idea is to use MPI to distribute the load evenly to the nodes of the cluster and then utilize CUDA to run the individual chunks in parallel inside the GPUs of the nodes.
Distributing the load with MPI is something I can easily do and have done in the past. Also computing with CUDA is something I can learn. There is also a project (pyrit) that does more or less what I need to do (actually a lot more) and I can get ideas from there.
I would like some advice on how to make the connection between MPI and CUDA. If there is somebody that has built anything like this I would greatly appreciate his advice and suggestions. Also if you happen to know of any resources on the topic please do point them to me.
Sorry for the lengthy intro but I thought it was necessary to give some background.
This question is largerly open-ended and so it's hard to give a definitive answer. This one is just a summary of the comments made High Performance Mark, me and Jonathan Dursi. I do not claim authorship and thus made this answer a community wiki.
MPI and CUDA are orthogonal. The former is an IPC middleware and is used to communicate between processes (possibly residing on separate nodes) while the latter provides highly data-parallel shared-memory computing to each process that uses it. You can break the task into many small subtasks and use MPI to distribute them to worker processes running on the network. The master/worker approach is suitable for this kind of application, especially if words in the dictionary vary greatly in their length and variance in processing time is to be expected. Provided with all the necessary input values, worker processes can then use CUDA to perform the necessary computations in parallel and then return results back using MPI. MPI also provides the mechanisms necessary to launch and control multinode jobs.
Although MPI and CUDA could be used separately, modern MPI implementations provide some mechanisms that blur the boundaries between those two. It could be either direct support for device pointers in MPI communication operations that transparently call CUDA functions to copy memory when necessary or it could be even support for RDMA to/from device memory without intermediate copy to main memory. The former simplifies your code while the latter can save different amount of time, depending on how your algorithm is structured. The latter also requires both failry new CUDA hardware and drivers and newer networking equipment (e.g. newer InfiniBand HCA).
MPI libraries that support direct GPU memory operations include MVAPICH2 and the trunk SVN version of Open MPI.
I'm creating a multi-threaded application in Linux. here is the scenario:
Suppose I am having x instance of a class BloomFilter and I have some y GB of data(greater than memory available). I need to test membership for this y GB of data in each of the bloom filter instance. It is pretty much clear that parallel programming will help to speed up the task moreover since I am only reading the data so it can be shared across all processes or threads.
Now I am confused about which one to use Cilk, Cilk++ or OpenMP(which one is better). Also I am confused about which one to go for Multithreading or Multiprocessing
Cilk Plus is the current implementation of Cilk by Intel.
They both are multithreaded environment, i.e., multiple threads are spawned during execution.
If you are new to parallel programming probably OpenMP is better for you since it allows an easier parallelization of already developed sequential code. Do you already have a sequential version of your code?
OpenMP uses pragma to instruct the compiler which portions of the code has to run in parallel. If I understand your problem correctly you probably need something like this:
#pragma omp parallel for firstprivate(array_of_bloom_filters)
for i in DATA:
check(i,array_of_bloom_filters);
the instances of different bloom filters are replicated in every thread in order to avoid contention while data is shared among thread.
update:
The paper actually consider an application which is very unbalanced, i.e., different taks (allocated on different thread) may incur in very different workload. Citing the paper that you mentioned "a highly unbalanced task graph that challenges scheduling,
load balancing, termination detection, and task coarsening strategies". Consider that in order to balance computation among threads it is necessary to reduce the task size and therefore increase the time spent in synchronizations.
In other words, good load balancing comes always at a cost. The description of your problem is not very detailed but it seems to me that the problem you have is quite balanced. If this is not the case then go for Cilk, its work stealing approach its probably the best solution for unbalanced workloads.
At the time this was posted, Intel was putting a lot of effort into boosting Cilk(tm) Plus; more recently, some effort has been diverted toward OpenMP 4.0.
It's difficult in general to contrast OpenMP with Cilk(tm) Plus.
If it's not possible to distribute work evenly across threads, one would likely set schedule(runtime) in an OpenMP version, and then at run time try various values of environment variable, such as OMP_SCHEDULE=guided, OMP_SCHEDULE=dynamic,2 or OMP_SCHEDULE=auto. Those are the closest OpenMP analogies to the way Cilk(tm) Plus work stealing works.
Some sparse matrix functions in Intel MKL library do actually scan the job first and determine how much to allocate to each thread so as to balance work. For this method to be useful, the time spent in serial scanning and allocating has to be of lower order than the time spent in parallel work.
Work-stealing, or dynamic scheduling, may lose much of the potential advantage of OpenMP in promoting cache locality by pinning threads with cache locality e.g. by OMP_PROC_BIND=close.
Poor cache locality becomes a bigger issue on a NUMA architecture where it may lead to significant time spent on remote memory access.
Both OpenMP and Cilk(tm) Plus have facilities for switching between serial and parallel execution.
I know for some machine learning algorithm like random forest, which are by nature should be implemented in parallel. I do a home work and find there are these three parallel programming framework, so I am interested in knowing what are the major difference between these three types of parallelism?
Especially, if some one can point me to some study compare the difference between them, that will be perfect!
Please list the pros and cons for each parallelism , thanks
MPI is a message passing paradigm of parallelism. Here, you have a root machine which spawns programs on all the machines in its MPI WORLD. All the threads in the system are independent and hence the only way of communication between them is through messages over network. The network bandwidth and throughput is one of the most crucial factor in MPI implementation's performance. Idea : If there is just one thread per machine and you have many cores on it, you can use OpenMP shared memory paradigm for solving subsets of your problem on one machine.
CUDA is a SMT paradigm of parallelism. It uses state of the art GPU architecture to provide parallelisim. A GPU contains (blocks of ( set of cores)) working on same instruction in a lock-step fashion (This is similar to SIMD model). Hence, if all the threads in your system do a lot of same work, you can use CUDA. But the amount of shared memory and global memory in a GPU are limited and hence you should not use just one GPU for solving a huge problem.
Hadoop is used for solving large problems on commodity hardware using Map Reduce paradigm. Hence, you do not have to worry about distributing data or managing corner cases. Hadoop also provides a file system HDFS for storing data on compute nodes.
Hadoop, MPI and CUDA are completely orthogonal to each other. Hence, it may not be fair to compare them.
Though, you can always use ( CUDA + MPI ) to solve a problem using a cluster of GPU's. You still need a simple core to perform the communication part of the problem.
With the recent buzz on multicore programming is anyone exploring the possibilities of using MPI ?
I've used MPI extensively on large clusters with multi-core nodes. I'm not sure if it's the right thing for a single multi-core box, but if you anticipate that your code may one day scale larger than a single chip, you might consider implementing it in MPI. Right now, nothing scales larger than MPI. I'm not sure where the posters who mention unacceptable overheads are coming from, but I've tried to give an overview of the relevant tradeoffs below. Read on for more.
MPI is the de-facto standard for large-scale scientific computation and it's in wide use on multicore machines already. It is very fast. Take a look at the most recent Top 500 list. The top machines on that list have, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of processors, with multi-socket dual- and quad-core nodes. Many of these machines have very fast custom networks (Torus, Mesh, Tree, etc) and optimized MPI implementations that are aware of the hardware.
If you want to use MPI with a single-chip multi-core machine, it will work fine. In fact, recent versions of Mac OS X come with OpenMPI pre-installed, and you can download an install OpenMPI pretty painlessly on an ordinary multi-core Linux machine. OpenMPI is in use at Los Alamos on most of their systems. Livermore uses mvapich on their Linux clusters. What you should keep in mind before diving in is that MPI was designed for solving large-scale scientific problems on distributed-memory systems. The multi-core boxes you are dealing with probably have shared memory.
OpenMPI and other implementations use shared memory for local message passing by default, so you don't have to worry about network overhead when you're passing messages to local processes. It's pretty transparent, and I'm not sure where other posters are getting their concerns about high overhead. The caveat is that MPI is not the easiest thing you could use to get parallelism on a single multi-core box. In MPI, all the message passing is explicit. It has been called the "assembly language" of parallel programming for this reason. Explicit communication between processes isn't easy if you're not an experienced HPC person, and there are other paradigms more suited for shared memory (UPC, OpenMP, and nice languages like Erlang to name a few) that you might try first.
My advice is to go with MPI if you anticipate writing a parallel application that may need more than a single machine to solve. You'll be able to test and run fine with a regular multi-core box, and migrating to a cluster will be pretty painless once you get it working there. If you are writing an application that will only ever need a single machine, try something else. There are easier ways to exploit that kind of parallelism.
Finally, if you are feeling really adventurous, try MPI in conjunction with threads, OpenMP, or some other local shared-memory paradigm. You can use MPI for the distributed message passing and something else for on-node parallelism. This is where big machines are going; future machines with hundreds of thousands of processors or more are expected to have MPI implementations that scale to all nodes but not all cores, and HPC people will be forced to build hybrid applications. This isn't for the faint of heart, and there's a lot of work to be done before there's an accepted paradigm in this space.
I would have to agree with tgamblin. You'll probably have to roll your sleeves up and really dig into the code to use MPI, explicitly handling the organization of the message-passing yourself. If this is the sort of thing you like or don't mind doing, I would expect that MPI would work just as well on multicore machines as it would on a distributed cluster.
Speaking from personal experience... I coded up some C code in graduate school to do some large scale modeling of electrophysiologic models on a cluster where each node was itself a multicore machine. Therefore, there were a couple of different parallel methods I thought of to tackle the problem.
1) I could use MPI alone, treating every processor as it's own "node" even though some of them are grouped together on the same machine.
2) I could use MPI to handle data moving between multicore nodes, and then use threading (POSIX threads) within each multicore machine, where processors share memory.
For the specific mathematical problem I was working on, I tested two formulations first on a single multicore machine: one using MPI and one using POSIX threads. As it turned out, the MPI implementation was much more efficient, giving a speed-up of close to 2 for a dual-core machine as opposed to 1.3-1.4 for the threaded implementation. For the MPI code, I was able to organize operations so that processors were rarely idle, staying busy while messages were passed between them and masking much of the delay from transferring data. With the threaded code, I ended up with a lot of mutex bottlenecks that forced threads to often sit and wait while other threads completed their computations. Keeping the computational load balanced between threads didn't seem to help this fact.
This may have been specific to just the models I was working on, and the effectiveness of threading vs. MPI would likely vary greatly for other types of parallel problems. Nevertheless, I would disagree that MPI has an unwieldy overhead.
No, in my opinion it is unsuitable for most processing you would do on a multicore system. The overhead is too high, the objects you pass around must be deeply cloned, and passing large objects graphs around to then run a very small computation is very inefficient. It is really meant for sharing data between separate processes, most often running in separate memory spaces, and most often running long computations.
A multicore processor is a shared memory machine, so there are much more efficient ways to do parallel processing, that do not involve copying objects and where most of the threads run for a very small time. For example, think of a multithreaded Quicksort. The overhead of allocating memory and copying the data to a thread before it can be partioned will be much slower with MPI and an unlimited number of processors than Quicksort running on a single processor.
As an example, in Java, I would use a BlockingQueue (a shared memory construct), to pass object references between threads, with very little overhead.
Not that it does not have its place, see for example the Google search cluster that uses message passing. But it's probably not the problem you are trying to solve.
MPI is not inefficient. You need to break the problem down into chunks and pass the chunks around and reorganize when the result is finished per chunk. No one in the right mind would pass around the whole object via MPI when only a portion of the problem is being worked on per thread. Its not the inefficiency of the interface or design pattern thats the inefficiency of the programmers knowledge of how to break up a problem.
When you use a locking mechanism the overhead on the mutex does not scale well. this is due to the fact that the underlining runqueue does not know when you are going to lock the thread next. You will perform more kernel level thrashing using mutex's than a message passing design pattern.
MPI has a very large amount of overhead, primarily to handle inter-process communication and heterogeneous systems. I've used it in cases where a small amount of data is being passed around, and where the ratio of computation to data is large.
This is not the typical usage scenario for most consumer or business tasks, and in any case, as a previous reply mentioned, on a shared memory architecture like a multicore machine, there are vastly faster ways to handle it, such as memory pointers.
If you had some sort of problem with the properties describe above, and you want to be able to spread the job around to other machines, which must be on the same highspeed network as yourself, then maybe MPI could make sense. I have a hard time imagining such a scenario though.
I personally have taken up Erlang( and i like to so far). The messages based approach seem to fit most of the problem and i think that is going to be one of the key item for multi core programming. I never knew about the overhead of MPI and thanks for pointing it out
You have to decide if you want low level threading or high level threading. If you want low level then use pThread. You have to be careful that you don't introduce race conditions and make threading performance work against you.
I have used some OSS packages for (C and C++) that are scalable and optimize the task scheduling. TBB (threading building blocks) and Cilk Plus are good and easy to code and get applications of the ground. I also believe they are flexible enough integrate other thread technologies into it at a later point if needed (OpenMP etc.)
www.threadingbuildingblocks.org
www.cilkplus.org