skip to main content
10.1145/3350755.3400242acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Network Partitioning and Avoidable Contention

Published:09 July 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Network contention frequently dominates the run time of parallel algorithms and limits scaling performance. Most previous studies mitigate or eliminate contention by utilizing one of several approaches: communication-minimizing algorithms; hotspot-avoiding routing schemes; topology-aware task mapping; or improving global network properties, such as bisection bandwidth, edge-expansion, partitioning, and network diameter. In practice, parallel jobs often use only a fraction of a host system. How do processor allocation policies affect contention within a partition?

We utilize edge-isoperimetric analysis of network graphs to determine whether a network partition defined by a processor allocation has optimal internal bisection. Increasing the bisection allows a more efficient use of the network resources, decreasing or completely eliminating the link contention. We study torus networks and characterize partition geometries that maximize internal bisection bandwidth, and examine the allocation policies of Mira and JUQUEEN, the two largest publicly-accessible Blue~Gene/Q torus-based supercomputers. Our analysis shows that the bisection bandwidth of their partitions can often be improved by changing the partitions' geometries, yielding up to a x2~speedup for contention-bound workloads. Benchmark experiments validate the predictions. Our analysis applies to allocation policies of other networks.

References

  1. Rudolf Ahlswede and Sergej L Bezrukov. Edge isoperimetric theorems for integer point arrays. Applied Mathematics Letters, 8(2):75--80, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jung Ho Ahn, Nathan Binkert, Al Davis, Moray McLaren, and Robert S Schreiber. HyperX: topology, routing, and packaging of efficient large-scale networks. In Proceedings of the Conference on High Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis, page 41. ACM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yuuichirou Ajima, Tomohiro Inoue, Shinya Hiramoto, and Toshiyuki Shimizu. Tofu: Interconnect for the K computer. Fujitsu Sci. Tech. J, 48(3):280--285, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bob Alverson, Tim Johnson, Joe Kopnick, Mike Higgins, and James Reinhard. Cray Cascade: a Scalable HPC System based on a Dragonfly Network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, page 103. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Argonne National Laboratory website. Official machine overview of Mira. https://www.alcf.anl.gov/user-guides/machine-overview-bgq.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Grey Ballard, E Carson, J Demmel, M Hoemmen, Nicholas Knight, and Oded Schwartz. Communication lower bounds and optimal algorithms for numerical linear algebra. Acta Numerica, 23:1--155, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Grey Ballard, James Demmel, Andrew Gearhart, Benjamin Lipshitz, Yishai Oltchik, Oded Schwartz, and Sivan Toledo. Network topologies and inevitable contention. In Communication Optimizations in HPC (COMHPC), International Workshop on, pages 39--52. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Grey Ballard, James Demmel, Olga Holtz, Benjamin Lipshitz, and Oded Schwartz. Communication-optimal parallel algorithm for Strassen's matrix multiplication. In Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures, pages 193--204. ACM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Maciej Besta and Torsten Hoefler. Slim fly: A cost effective low-diameter network topology. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 348--359. IEEE Press, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Abhinav Bhatele, Nikhil Jain, Katherine E Isaacs, Ronak Buch, Todd Gamblin, Steven H Langer, and Laxmikant V Kale. Optimizing the performance of parallel applications on a 5d torus via task mapping. In High Performance Computing (HiPC), 2014 21st International Conference on, pages 1--10. IEEE, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Béla Bollobás and Imre Leader. Edge-isoperimetric inequalities in the grid. Combinatorica, 11(4):299--314, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dong Chen, Noel Eisley, Philip Heidelberger, Sameer Kumar, Amith Mamidala, Fabrizio Petrini, Robert Senger, Yutaka Sugawara, Robert Walkup, Burkhard Steinmacher-Burow, Anamitra Choudhury, Yogish Sabharwal, Swati Singhal, and Jeffrey J. Parker. Looking under the hood of the IBM Blue Gene/Q network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, page 69. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dong Chen, Noel Eisley, Philip Heidelberger, Robert Senger, Yutaka Sugawara, Sameer Kumar, Valentina Salapura, David Satterfield, Burkhard Steinmacher-Burow, and Jeffrey Parker. The IBM Blue Gene/Q interconnection fabric. IEEE Micro, 32(1):32--43, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. James Demmel, Laura Grigori, Mark Hoemmen, and Julien Langou. Communication-optimal parallel and sequential QR and LU factorizations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 34(1):A206--A239, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jack J Dongarra, Piotr Luszczek, and Antoine Petitet. The LINPACK benchmark: past, present and future. Concurrency and Computation: practice and experience, 15(9):803--820, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jack J Dongarra, Hans W Meuer, and Erich Strohmaier. Top500 Supercomputer Sites, November 2017, 2017. www.top500.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael R Garey, David S Johnson, and Larry Stockmeyer. Some simplified NP-complete problems. In Proceedings of the sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 47--63. ACM, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lawrence Hueston Harper. Optimal assignments of numbers to vertices. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 12(1):131--135, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Nikhil Jain, Abhinav Bhatele, Xiang Ni, Todd Gamblin, and Laxmikant V Kale. Partitioning low-diameter networks to eliminate inter-job interference. In Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), 2017 IEEE International, pages 439--448. IEEE, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi, Ankit Singla, P Brighten Godfrey, and Alexandra Kolla. Measuring and understanding throughput of network topologies. In High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC16: International Conference for, pages 761--772. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. John Kim, Wiliam J Dally, Steve Scott, and Dennis Abts. Technology-driven, highly-scalable dragonfly topology. In Computer Architecture, 2008. ISCA'08. 35th International Symposium on, pages 77--88. IEEE, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website. Sequoia supercomputer transitions to classified work. https://www.llnl.gov/news/sequoia-supercomputer-transitions-classified-work.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website. Using the Sequoia and Vulcan BG/Q Systems. https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/bgq/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. James R Lee, Shayan Oveis Gharan, and Luca Trevisan. Multiway spectral partitioning and higher-order cheeger inequalities. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 61(6):37, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. John H Lindsey. Assignment of numbers to vertices. The American Mathematical Monthly, 71(5):508--516, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Benjamin Lipshitz, Grey Ballard, James Demmel, and Oded Schwartz. Communication-avoiding parallel strassen: Implementation and performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, page 101. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. NASA Website. Official machine overview of the Pleiades supercompter. https://www.nas.nasa.gov/hecc/resources/pleiades.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Oak Ridge National Laboratory website. Official machine overview of Titan. https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/olcf-resources/compute-systems/titan/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Yishai Oltchik and Oded Schwartz. Network partitioning and avoidable contention. arXiv, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Arjun Singh. Load-balanced routing in interconnection networks. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Edgar Solomonik and James Demmel. Communication-optimal parallel 2.5D matrix multiplication and LU factorization algorithms. In European Conference on Parallel Processing, pages 90--109. Springer, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Asaf Valadarsky, Michael Dinitz, and Michael Schapira. Xpander: unveiling the secrets of high-performance datacenters. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, page 16. ACM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Network Partitioning and Avoidable Contention

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SPAA '20: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
          July 2020
          601 pages
          ISBN:9781450369350
          DOI:10.1145/3350755

          Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 9 July 2020

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • extended-abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate447of1,461submissions,31%

          Upcoming Conference

          SPAA '24
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader