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.
Related
I know that the usual method when we want to make a big math computation faster is to use multiprocessing / parallel processing: we split the job in for example 4 parts, and we let 4 CPU cores run in parallel (parallelization). This is possible for example in Python with multiprocessing module: on a 4-core CPU, it would allow to use 100% of the processing power of the computer instead of only 25% for a single-process job.
But let's say we want to make faster a non-easily-splittable computation job.
Example: we are given a number generator function generate(n) that takes the previously-generated number as input, and "it is said to have 10^20 as period". We want to check this assertion with the following pseudo-code:
a = 17
for i = 1..10^20
a = generate(a)
check if a == 17
Instead of having a computer's 4 CPU cores (3.3 Ghz) running "in parallel" with a total of 4 processes, is it possible to emulate one very fast single-core CPU of 13.2 Ghz (4*3.3) running one single process with the previous code?
Is such technique available for a desktop computer? If not, is it available on cloud computing platforms (AWS EC2, etc.)?
Single-threaded performance is extremely valuable; it's much easier to write sequential code than to explicitly expose thread-level parallelism.
If there was an easy and efficient general-purpose way to do what you're asking which works when there is no parallelism in the code, it would already be in widespread use. Either internally inside multi-core CPUs, or in software if it required higher-level / larger-scale code transformations.
Out-of-order CPUs can find and exploit instruction-level parallelism within a single thread (over short distances, like a couple hundred instructions), but you need explicit thread-level parallelism to take advantage of multiple cores.
This is similar to How does a single thread run on multiple cores? over on SoftwareEnginnering.SE, except that you've already ruled out any easy-to-find parallelism including instruction-level parallelism. (And the answer is: it doesn't. It's the hardware of a single core that finds the instruction-level parallelism in a single thread; my answer there explains some of the microarchitectural details of how that works.)
The reverse process: turning one big CPU into multiple weaker CPUs does exist, and is useful for running multiple threads which don't have much instruction-level parallelism. It's called SMT (Simultaneous MultiThreading). You've probably heard of Intel's Hyperthreading, the most widely known implementation of SMT. It trades single-threaded performance for more throughput, keeping more execution units fed with useful work more of the time. The cost of building a single wide core grows at least quadratically, which is why typical desktop CPUs don't just have a single massive core with 8-way SMT. (And note that a really wide CPU still wouldn't help with a totally dependent instruction stream, unless the generate function has some internal instruction-level parallelism.)
SMT would be good if you wanted to test 8 different generate() functions at once on a quad-core CPU. Without SMT, you could alternate in software between two generate chains in one thread, so out-of-order execution could be working on instructions from both dependency chains in parallel.
Auto-parallelization by compilers at compile time is possible for source that has some visible parallelism, but if generate(a) isn't "separable" (not the correct technical term, I think) then you're out of luck.
e.g. if it's return a + hidden_array[static_counter++]; then the compiler can use math to prove that summing chunks of the array in parallel and adding the partial sums will still give the same result.
But if there's truly a serial dependency through a (like even a simple LCG PRNG), and the software doesn't know any mathematical tricks to break the dependency or reduce it to a closed form, you're out of luck. Compilers do know tricks like sum(0..n) = n*(n+1)/2 (evaluated slightly differently to avoid integer overflow in a partial result), or a+a+a+... (n times) is a * n, but that doesn't help here.
There is a scheme studied mostly in the academy called "Thread Decomposition". It aims to do more or less what you ask about - given a single-threaded code, it tries to break it down into multiple threads in order to divide the work on a multicore system. This process can be done by a compiler (although this requires figuring out all possible side effects at compile time which is very hard), by a JIT runtime, or through HW binary-translation, but each of these methods has complicated limitations and drawbacks.
Unfortunately, other than being automated, this process has very little appeal as it can hardly match true manual parallelization done by a person how understands the code. It also doesn't simply scale performance according to the number of threads, since it usually incurs a large overhead in the form of code that has to be duplicated.
Example paper by some nice folks from UPC in Barcelona: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5260571/
I am developing a code to perform a few very large computations by my standards. Based on single-CPU estimates, expected run-time is ~10 CPU years, and memory requirements are ~64 GB. Little to no IO is required. My serial version of the code in question (written in C) is working well enough and I have to start thinking about how to best parallelize the code.
I have access to clusters with ~64 GB RAM and 16 cores per node. I will probably limit myself to using e.g. <= 8 nodes. I'm imagining a setup where memory is shared between threads on a single node, with separate memory used on different nodes and relatively little communication between nodes.
From what I've read so far, the solution I have come up with is to use a hybrid OpenMP + OpenMPI design, using OpenMP to manage threads on individual compute nodes, and OpenMPI to pass information between nodes, like this:
https://www.rc.colorado.edu/crcdocs/openmpi-openmp
My question is whether this is the "best" way to implement this parallelization. I'm an experienced C programmer but have very limited experience in parallel programming (a little bit with OpenMP, none with OpenMPI; most of my jobs in the past were embarrassingly parallel). As an alternative suggestion, is it possible with OpenMPI to efficiently share memory on a single host? If so then I could avoid using OpenMP, which would make things slightly simpler (one API instead of two).
Hybrid OpenMP and MPI coding is most appropriate for problems where one can clearly identify two separate levels of parallelism - corase grained one and the fine grained one nested inside each coarse subdomain. Since fine grained parallelism requires lots of communication when implemented with message passing, it doesn't scale, because the communication overhead can become comparable to the amount of work being done. As OpenMP is a shared memory paradigm, no data communication is necessary, only access synchronisation, and it is more appropriate for finer grained parallel tasks. OpenMP also benefits from data sharing between threads (and the corresponding cache sharing on modern multi-core CPUs with shared last-level cache) and usually requires less memory than the equivalent message passing code, where some of the data might need to be replicated in all processes. MPI on the other side can run cross nodes and is not limited to running on a single shared-memory system.
Your words suggest that your parallelisation is very coarse grained or belongs to the so-called embarassingly parallel problems. If I were you, I would go hybrid. If you only employ OpenMP pragmas and don't use runtime calls (e.g. omp_get_thread_num()) your code can be compiled as both pure MPI (i.e. with non-threaded MPI processes) or as hybrid, depending on whether you enable OpenMP or not (you can also provide a dummy OpenMP runtime to enable code to be compiled as serial). This will give you both the benefits of OpenMP (data sharing, cache reusage) and MPI (transparent networking, scalability, easy job launching) with the added option to switch off OpenMP and run in an MPI-only mode. And as an added bonus, you will be able to meet the future, which looks like brining us interconnected many-many-core CPUs.
With the abundance of techniques being employed to increase parallelization in today's compiler-tools (especially auto-parallelization of certain viable for-constructs, c.f. the Intel C++ Compiler, Microsoft Visual Studio 2011, alongside various others), I wondered if parallelization is always guaranteed to improve or have no impact on performance.
Are there any cases in which parallelization would have a distinctly negative impact on performance?
A quick internet search didn't yield much hope, so I decided to turn here to see if anyone has any knowledge of cases where parallelization has a detrimental impact on performance, or better yet, experience in a project where parallelization actually caused difficulties.
I am also curious about whether there are any negative performance implication of auto-vectorization, although I find it quite unlikely that there would be.
Thanks in advance!
Parallelisation usually involves some abstract data exchange between the different processing elements since not all of them have exclusive access to all the data that it needs in order to complete its part of the computation. It could either be messages passed between different processes in an MPI job or it could be synchronisation actions in a multithreaded program. Passing data around or synchronising things takes time and that's why it is usually called communication or synchronisation overhead. There are different classes of problems depending on the ratio between overhead and computation.
Parallel algorithms that require no communication or synchronisation at all are called trivially (or "embarrassingly") parallel problems. An example of this class is a ray-tracing application: each pixel can be computed independently of all the others. Problems in this class scale linearly with the number of processing elements used (and sometimes even superlinearly because of caching effects) - give it twice as many processing elements and it will take twice as less time to perform the computation.
If any amount of communication or synchronisation is involved then things get progressively worse as the ratio between communication/synchronisation and computation increases. Usually this is the case when the problem size is kept fixed as one increases the number of processing elements. Usually the overhead increases with the number of processing elements while the amount of computation per element decreases.
Auto-vectorization can theoretically fall into "traps" where the overhead of getting all the elements in the right places is actually bigger than the time saved by doing things in parallel. Analyzing how much time a piece of code will take is hard, so it's hard for compilers to make the right decision.
Towards the end of these slides are some examples and statistics about auto-vectorization making the performance worse.
Usually with reasonable usage parallelization (mean parallel processing) gives positive performance imact.
But in some cases, from developer point of view, it could cause negative effects:
When allocating to many thread for parallel and/or multithreading processing.
Fork/join parallelism and loops parallelization when iteration is to small and allocating threads costs more time and resources than simple to process items synchronously
Typical multithreading/parallel execution problems like deadlocks, livelocks, threads stravation, race conditions etc.
Debugging and diagnostic, it's harder to find bugs
So all should be used reasonably.
And some links. Sorry they are .NET/Microsoft specific but problems described there are same:
Potential Pitfalls in Data and Task Parallelism
Potential Pitfalls with Parallel LINQ (PLINQ)
Good book where common problems and pitfalls are described:
Patterns for Parallel Programming: Understanding and Applying Parallel Patterns with the .NET Framework 4
From a more theoretical point of view, you may be interested in problems that are not in NC, i.e. the class of decision problems decidable in polylogarithmic time on a parallel computer with a polynomial number of processors.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any computational problem that is not, in some way or another, parallelizable. What I have encountered many times though are problems that have been badly parallelized.
Badly parallelized programs can easily be slower than their sequential versions. This can be a result of:
Massive overheads due to the parallelism being too fine-grained, e.g. the amount of work performed per thread is negligible compared to the overhead of starting/scheduling the operation. In OpenMP, this could be the case of a #pragma omp parallel for schedule(dynamic,k) for a small chunk size k.
Repeated concurrent access to shared resources, e.g. if all threads have to wait to access some resource or memory location sequentially. In OpenMP, this can be caused by too many or too large #pragma omp critical sections.
Over-use of slow atomic operations to update variables shared between threads, e.g. using #pragma omp atomic where, in the sequential case, faster regular memory access would be used.
In summary, and in my opinion, there are few inherently sequential problems, but mountains of badly-implemented parallel solutions.
Almost all of the CUDA exemplar code describes doing near-atomic operations on large data sets. What kind of practical limitations are the to the size of a problem each thread can do?
For example, I have another question open at the minute that involves per-thread matrix solving. Is this kind of thing too large to put within each thread?
CUDA is a data parallel programming model for what is effectively an SIMD architecture, so obviously it isn't as flexible as a general purpose multithreaded or MIMD architecture. Certainly kernels can be a lot more complex than simple arithmetic operations.
In my own work I use CUDA a lot for solving partial differential equations (so the finite element, finite difference and finite volume methods), which every thread processes a cell or element from a discretised continuum. In that sort of calculation, there are a lot of FLOPs per thread per cell/element.
The key area to be mindful of is branch divergence. Because it is an SIMD architecture under the hood, code where there is a lot of branching within a warp of threads (which is effectively the SIMD width), will suffer performance penalties. But branch divergence and code complexity need not be synonymous, you can write very "branchy" and "loopy" code which will run well, as long as threads within any given warp don't diverge too often. In FLOP and IOP heavy algorithms, that is usually not too hard to achieve.
I just want to reiterate talonmies and say that there is no real limit to the "size" of a kernel in number of operations. As long as the computation is parallel, CUDA will be effective!
As far a practical considerations, I would just add a few small notes
long running kernels can timeout, depending on os (or when profiling with cudaProf). You might have to change a setting somewhere to increase maximum kernel execution time.
long running kernels on systems without a dedicated gpu can freeze the display (interrupting ui).
warps are executed asynchronously - one warp can access memory while another performs arithmetic in order to use clock cycles effectively. long running kernels might benefit more from attention to this kind of optimization. i'm not really sure about this last one.
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