I want to write a code converter that takes an OpenMP based parallel program and runs it on a cluster.
How do I go about this problem? What libraries do I use? How do I set up a small cluster for this?
I'm finding it extremely hard to find good material about cluster computing on the internet.
EDIT: If it's impossible then how does Intel do it? The Intel compiler seems to do exactly what I want to. I don't have any specific application that I would like to run. I want to write the "converter/compiler", not the application. I understand that shared memory is different from distributed memory, but there has to be a way to sync memory, if not for all cases, then for some specific cases, even if it means that application is written with custom constructs.
Intel has an implementation of OpenMP that works with their C++ and Fortran compilers for x86 64-bit clusters. You can get a 30-day eval version of these compilers for free. Other than that, Zifre is mostly right. If you are concerned with scalability, bite the bullet and write your parallel program in another programming model (MPI, CUDA, Cilk, ...) which is designed with distributed systems in mind. If you provide a little more information about your application, we may be able to provide more useful guidance on that front.
It seems to me that this is not a good idea.
The basic idea behind OpenMP is data-shared parallel execution. It works well, when accessing shared data costs you nothing. Every thread can access a variable in shared cache or RAM.
The cluster computations exploit message-passing, because computers in cluster have distributed memory. When one process needs data from another one then you should manage data passing over the network. It is time-consuming operation.
So, if you want to write such compiler, you should implement data broadcasting operations (e.g. MPI_Bcast from MPI) for each data access in OpenMP. This will kill parallel performance at all.
This is simply not possible. You have to structure your code in a completely different way to get it to work on a cluster (programming multiple machines is very different from programming one machine).
There is no magic pixie dust to do this.
On the other hand, if you write your program with clusters in mind, it is possible to run it on a single machine (although it will obviously be slower).
SCORE/SCASH and Omni OpenMP compiler
Related
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.
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 have a large scientific computing task that parallelizes very well with SMP, but at too fine grained a level to be easily parallelized via explicit message passing. I'd like to parallelize it across address spaces and physical machines. Is it feasible to create a scheduler that would parallelize already multithreaded code across multiple physical computers under the following conditions:
The code is already multithreaded and can scale pretty well on SMP configurations.
The fact that not all of the threads are running in the same address space or on the same physical machine must be transparent to the program, even if this comes at a significant performance penalty in some use cases.
You may assume that all of the physical machines involved are running operating systems and CPU architectures that are binary compatible.
Things like locks and atomic operations may be slow (having network latency to deal with and all) but must "just work".
Edits:
I only care about throughput, not latency.
I'm using the D programming language, and I'm almost sure there's no canned solution. I'm more interested in whether this is feasible in principle than in a particular canned solution.
My first thought is to use Apache Hadoop. It provides distributed storage and distributed computing. You can synchronize across processes by using files as locks.
It sounds like you want something like SCRAMNet, although that requires custom hardware. I don't know if there is a software-only solution. Also, it's likely that even if you got it working, you'd find your networked version was actually running slower than when it was previously on a single machine. You may just have to bite the bullet and re-design your app.
Since your point 2 suggests that you can live with some performance degradation you might want to consider a hybrid approach: SMP within individual machines, message-passing between machines. I'm not familiar with D so can offer no specific advice. Further I've seen mixed reviews of the hybrid approach for OpenMP+MPI, but it might suit you and your application.
EDIT: You might want to Google around for 'partitioned global address space' which seems to describe your desired approach quite accurately. As before, I have no advice on using D for this.
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
The 1.0 spec for OpenCL just came out a few days ago (Spec is here) and I've just started to read through it. I want to know if it plays well with other high performance multiprocessing APIs like OpenMP (spec) and I want to know what I should learn. So, here are my basic questions:
If I am already using OpenMP, will that break OpenCL or vice-versa?
Is OpenCL more powerful than OpenMP? Or are they intended to be complementary?
Is there a standard way of connecting an OpenCL program to a standard C99 program (or any other language)? What is it?
Does anyone know if anyone is writing an OpenCL book? I'm reading the spec, but I've found books to be more helpful.
OpenMP and OpenCL are distinct, but can be made to work together. Neither of them should "break" the other.
For the sake of argument, let's assume there's a tradeoff between minimizing changes to an existing codebase and performance or computing power. OMP is "easy" in that you can apply it "magically" to embarrassingly parallel problems with a quick pragma or two.
OpenCL introduces brand new high-level concepts beyond typical OS threading models. Khronos probably doesn't want to say it out loud, but its genesis is in NVIDIA's CUDA. If you want to see how it works today, download the CUDA SDK and start playing. If you don't have any NVIDIA GPUs, don't worry, there's a GPU-emulator software option. OpenCL is a handy abstraction of a GPU that should apply to CPUs, DSPs, "accelerators" (Khronos' nickname for IBM's CellBE and probably Intel's Larrabee).
OpenCL is not supposed to be "written directly in C99". It's referred to as a C99 extension since its syntax is similar/identical to C99 with some new keywords. You cannot call libc (or any other library) from a kernel.
You could use both, but theoretically, OpenCL should be "better" (in that it's portable to more computing devices) if you're willing to port your code. You can not use OpenMP pragmas in an OpenCL kernel.
See also:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL
CUDA
LLVM
For the most part OpenMP and OpenCL are independent from each other. They are both ways of giving the developer access to parallelism on their platform.
OpenMP is designed to work well with multiple (identical) processors, where work that is approximately equal can be (nearly) automatically farmed out between them.
OpenCL is a somewhat different beast, in that it is really shines when working with special co-processor hardware. It will allow you to offload some of the heavy-duty number crunching to the GPU or some other co-processor like in the Cell. However, it was also built with the idea that it could be used to harness other main processors, as are now common in multi-core computers. I would consider this feature to be secondary, and if this is all you intend to use OpenCL for, I would not recommend using OpenCL.
That said, I'd guess it would be somewhat challenging, though definitely not impossible to get OpenMP and OpenCL to work together in the same problem.
The first thing to think about is what work you're giving to OpenCL. This would definately be a case where you would only want OpenCL to run on the GPU/Co-processor...not on the other main-processors/cores, since OpenMP is alreay using those. It wouldn't (shouldn't) cause application errors to run OpenCL and OpenMP on the same main processor, but it will cause un-desirable scheduling where both the OpenMP and OpenCL run slower because they spend a good chunk of their time switching back and fourth between each other. This would also happen if you run any other processor-hungry process on the same core at the same time.
The other big thing to think about is how you're going to schedule tasks that do run on the Co-processor. Its true that you can feed a lot of work into one of the modern GPUs, but there are lots of things to think about with the pipeline and memory usage. What you wouldn't want to happen is to have 8 different OpenMP threads each trying to send their own work to the Co-Processor at the same time. I would recommend having only one thread that manages all the interactions with the Co-Processor, so it can make sure to feed it work in an efficient manner.
That said, I'm sure there are programs that have multiple types of tasks happening at the same time, where one type of task could always be farmed out to the Co-Processor and another kind of task could be handled by the multi-core main processor. This would be a fine example of a time to mix OpenMP and OpenCL.
Good Luck!
?
?
OpenCL is supposed to be written directly in C99 afaik? There are header files available now for it anyhow.
?
By the way, there is a work about openMp to gpgpu using CUDA.