Current advances in high performance computing (HPC) continue to suffer from the issues plaguing parallel computation. These issues include, but are not limited to, ease of programming, inability to handle dynamically changing workloads, scalability, and efficient utilization of system resources. Emerging technological trends such as multi-core processors further highlight limitations of existing parallel computation models. To mitigate the aforementioned problems, it is necessary to rethink the approach to parallelization models. ParalleX contains mechanisms such as multi-threading, parcels, global name space support, percolation and local control objects (LCO). By design, ParalleX overcomes limitations of current models of parallelism by alleviating contention, latency, overhead and starvation. With ParalleX, it is further possible to increase performance by at least an order of magnitude on challenging parallel algorithms, e.g., dynamic directed graph algorithms and adaptive mesh refinement methods for astrophysics. An additional benefit of ParalleX is fine-grained control of power usage, enabling reductions in power consumption.
ParalleX—a new execution model for future architectures¶
ParalleX is a new parallel execution model that offers an alternative to the conventional computation models, such as message passing. ParalleX distinguishes itself by:
Split-phase transaction model
Distributed shared memory (not cache coherent)
Synchronization for anonymous producer-consumer scenarios
Percolation (pre-staging of task data)
The ParalleX model is intrinsically latency hiding, delivering an abundance of variable-grained parallelism within a hierarchical namespace environment. The goal of this innovative strategy is to enable future systems delivering very high efficiency, increased scalability and ease of programming. ParalleX can contribute to significant improvements in the design of all levels of computing systems and their usage from application algorithms and their programming languages to system architecture and hardware design together with their supporting compilers and operating system software.
What is HPX?¶
High Performance ParalleX (HPX) is the first runtime system implementation of the ParalleX execution model. The HPX runtime software package is a modular, feature-complete, and performance-oriented representation of the ParalleX execution model targeted at conventional parallel computing architectures, such as SMP nodes and commodity clusters. It is academically developed and freely available under an open source license. We provide HPX to the community for experimentation and application to achieve high efficiency and scalability for dynamic adaptive and irregular computational problems. HPX is a C++ library that supports a set of critical mechanisms for dynamic adaptive resource management and lightweight task scheduling within the context of a global address space. It is solidly based on many years of experience in writing highly parallel applications for HPC systems.
The two-decade success of the communicating sequential processes (CSP) execution model and its message passing interface (MPI) programming model have been seriously eroded by challenges of power, processor core complexity, multi-core sockets, and heterogeneous structures of GPUs. Both efficiency and scalability for some current (strong scaled) applications and future Exascale applications demand new techniques to expose new sources of algorithm parallelism and exploit unused resources through adaptive use of runtime information.
The ParalleX execution model replaces CSP to provide a new computing paradigm embodying the governing principles for organizing and conducting highly efficient scalable computations greatly exceeding the capabilities of today’s problems. HPX is the first practical, reliable, and performance-oriented runtime system incorporating the principal concepts of the ParalleX model publicly provided in open source release form.
HPX is designed by the STE||AR Group (Systems Technology, Emergent Parallelism, and Algorithm Research) at Louisiana State University (LSU)’s Center for Computation and Technology (CCT) to enable developers to exploit the full processing power of many-core systems with an unprecedented degree of parallelism. STE||AR is a research group focusing on system software solutions and scientific application development for hybrid and many-core hardware architectures.
What makes our systems slow?¶
Estimates say that we currently run our computers at well below 100% efficiency. The theoretical peak performance (usually measured in FLOPS—floating point operations per second) is much higher than any practical peak performance reached by any application. This is particularly true for highly parallel hardware. The more hardware parallelism we provide to an application, the better the application must scale in order to efficiently use all the resources of the machine. Roughly speaking, we distinguish two forms of scalability: strong scaling (see Amdahl’s Law) and weak scaling (see Gustafson’s Law). Strong scaling is defined as how the solution time varies with the number of processors for a fixed total problem size. It gives an estimate of how much faster we can solve a particular problem by throwing more resources at it. Weak scaling is defined as how the solution time varies with the number of processors for a fixed problem size per processor. In other words, it defines how much more data can we process by using more hardware resources.
In order to utilize as much hardware parallelism as possible an application must exhibit excellent strong and weak scaling characteristics, which requires a high percentage of work executed in parallel, i.e., using multiple threads of execution. Optimally, if you execute an application on a hardware resource with N processors it either runs N times faster or it can handle N times more data. Both cases imply 100% of the work is executed on all available processors in parallel. However, this is just a theoretical limit. Unfortunately, there are more things that limit scalability, mostly inherent to the hardware architectures and the programming models we use. We break these limitations into four fundamental factors that make our systems SLOW:
Starvation occurs when there is insufficient concurrent work available to maintain high utilization of all resources.
Latencies are imposed by the time-distance delay intrinsic to accessing remote resources and services.
Overhead is work required for the management of parallel actions and resources on the critical execution path, which is not necessary in a sequential variant.
Waiting for contention resolution is the delay due to the lack of availability of oversubscribed shared resources.
Each of those four factors manifests itself in multiple and different ways; each of the hardware architectures and programming models expose specific forms. However, the interesting part is that all of them are limiting the scalability of applications no matter what part of the hardware jungle we look at. Hand-helds, PCs, supercomputers, or the cloud, all suffer from the reign of the 4 horsemen: Starvation, Latency, Overhead, and Contention. This realization is very important as it allows us to derive the criteria for solutions to the scalability problem from first principles, and it allows us to focus our analysis on very concrete patterns and measurable metrics. Moreover, any derived results will be applicable to a wide variety of targets.
Technology demands new response¶
Today’s computer systems are designed based on the initial ideas of John von Neumann, as published back in 1945, and later extended by the Harvard architecture. These ideas form the foundation, the execution model, of computer systems we use currently. However, a new response is required in the light of the demands created by today’s technology.
So, what are the overarching objectives for designing systems allowing for applications to scale as they should? In our opinion, the main objectives are:
Performance: as previously mentioned, scalability and efficiency are the main criteria people are interested in.
Fault tolerance: the low expected mean time between failures (MTBF) of future systems requires embracing faults, not trying to avoid them.
Power: minimizing energy consumption is a must as it is one of the major cost factors today, and will continue to rise in the future.
Generality: any system should be usable for a broad set of use cases.
Programmability: for programmer this is a very important objective, ensuring long term platform stability and portability.
What needs to be done to meet those objectives, to make applications scale better on tomorrow’s architectures? Well, the answer is almost obvious: we need to devise a new execution model—a set of governing principles for the holistic design of future systems—targeted at minimizing the effect of the outlined SLOW factors. Everything we create for future systems, every design decision we make, every criteria we apply, have to be validated against this single, uniform metric. This includes changes in the hardware architecture we prevalently use today, and it certainly involves new ways of writing software, starting from the operating system, runtime system, compilers, and at the application level. However, the key point is that all those layers have to be co-designed; they are interdependent and cannot be seen as separate facets. The systems we have today have been evolving for over 50 years now. All layers function in a certain way, relying on the other layers to do so. But we do not have the time to wait another 50 years for a new coherent system to evolve. The new paradigms are needed now—therefore, co-design is the key.
Governing principles applied while developing HPX¶
As it turn out, we do not have to start from scratch. Not everything has to be invented and designed anew. Many of the ideas needed to combat the 4 horsemen already exist, many for more than 30 years. All it takes is to gather them into a coherent approach. We’ll highlight some of the derived principles we think to be crucial for defeating SLOW. Some of those are focused on high-performance computing, others are more general.
Focus on latency hiding instead of latency avoidance¶
It is impossible to design a system exposing zero latencies. In an effort to come as close as possible to this goal many optimizations are mainly targeted towards minimizing latencies. Examples for this can be seen everywhere, such as low latency network technologies like InfiniBand, caching memory hierarchies in all modern processors, the constant optimization of existing MPI implementations to reduce related latencies, or the data transfer latencies intrinsic to the way we use GPGPUs today. It is important to note that existing latencies are often tightly related to some resource having to wait for the operation to be completed. At the same time it would be perfectly fine to do some other, unrelated work in the meantime, allowing the system to hide the latencies by filling the idle-time with useful work. Modern systems already employ similar techniques (pipelined instruction execution in the processor cores, asynchronous input/output operations, and many more). What we propose is to go beyond anything we know today and to make latency hiding an intrinsic concept of the operation of the whole system stack.
Embrace fine-grained parallelism instead of heavyweight threads¶
If we plan to hide latencies even for very short operations, such as fetching the contents of a memory cell from main memory (if it is not already cached), we need to have very lightweight threads with extremely short context switching times, optimally executable within one cycle. Granted, for mainstream architectures, this is not possible today (even if we already have special machines supporting this mode of operation, such as the Cray XMT). For conventional systems, however, the smaller the overhead of a context switch and the finer the granularity of the threading system, the better will be the overall system utilization and its efficiency. For today’s architectures we already see a flurry of libraries providing exactly this type of functionality: non-pre-emptive, task-queue based parallelization solutions, such as Intel Threading Building Blocks (TBB), Microsoft Parallel Patterns Library (PPL), Cilk++, and many others. The possibility to suspend a current task if some preconditions for its execution are not met (such as waiting for I/O or the result of a different task), seamlessly switching to any other task which can continue, and to reschedule the initial task after the required result has been calculated, which makes the implementation of latency hiding almost trivial.
Rediscover constraint-based synchronization to replace global barriers¶
The code we write today is riddled with implicit (and explicit) global barriers. By “global barriers,” we mean the synchronization of the control flow between several (very often all) threads (when using OpenMP) or processes (MPI). For instance, an implicit global barrier is inserted after each loop parallelized using OpenMP as the system synchronizes the threads used to execute the different iterations in parallel. In MPI each of the communication steps imposes an explicit barrier onto the execution flow as (often all) nodes have to be synchronized. Each of those barriers is like the eye of a needle the overall execution is forced to be squeezed through. Even minimal fluctuations in the execution times of the parallel threads (jobs) causes them to wait. Additionally, it is often only one of the executing threads that performs the actual reduce operation, which further impedes parallelism. A closer analysis of a couple of key algorithms used in science applications reveals that these global barriers are not always necessary. In many cases it is sufficient to synchronize a small subset of the threads. Any operation should proceed whenever the preconditions for its execution are met, and only those. Usually there is no need to wait for iterations of a loop to finish before you can continue calculating other things; all you need is to complete the iterations that produce the required results for the next operation. Good bye global barriers, hello constraint based synchronization! People have been trying to build this type of computing (and even computers) since the 1970s. The theory behind what they did is based on ideas around static and dynamic dataflow. There are certain attempts today to get back to those ideas and to incorporate them with modern architectures. For instance, a lot of work is being done in the area of constructing dataflow-oriented execution trees. Our results show that employing dataflow techniques in combination with the other ideas, as outlined herein, considerably improves scalability for many problems.
Adaptive locality control instead of static data distribution¶
While this principle seems to be a given for single desktop or laptop computers (the operating system is your friend), it is everything but ubiquitous on modern supercomputers, which are usually built from a large number of separate nodes (i.e., Beowulf clusters), tightly interconnected by a high-bandwidth, low-latency network. Today’s prevalent programming model for those is MPI, which does not directly help with proper data distribution, leaving it to the programmer to decompose the data to all of the nodes the application is running on. There are a couple of specialized languages and programming environments based on PGAS (Partitioned Global Address Space) designed to overcome this limitation, such as Chapel, X10, UPC, or Fortress. However, all systems based on PGAS rely on static data distribution. This works fine as long as this static data distribution does not result in heterogeneous workload distributions or other resource utilization imbalances. In a distributed system these imbalances can be mitigated by migrating part of the application data to different localities (nodes). The only framework supporting (limited) migration today is Charm++. The first attempts towards solving related problem go back decades as well, a good example is the Linda coordination language. Nevertheless, none of the other mentioned systems support data migration today, which forces the users to either rely on static data distribution and live with the related performance hits or to implement everything themselves, which is very tedious and difficult. We believe that the only viable way to flexibly support dynamic and adaptive locality control is to provide a global, uniform address space to the applications, even on distributed systems.
Prefer moving work to the data over moving data to the work¶
For the best performance it seems obvious to minimize the amount of bytes transferred from one part of the system to another. This is true on all levels. At the lowest level we try to take advantage of processor memory caches, thus, minimizing memory latencies. Similarly, we try to amortize the data transfer time to and from GPGPUs as much as possible. At high levels we try to minimize data transfer between different nodes of a cluster or between different virtual machines on the cloud. Our experience (well, it’s almost common wisdom) shows that the amount of bytes necessary to encode a certain operation is very often much smaller than the amount of bytes encoding the data the operation is performed upon. Nevertheless, we still often transfer the data to a particular place where we execute the operation just to bring the data back to where it came from afterwards. As an example let’s look at the way we usually write our applications for clusters using MPI. This programming model is all about data transfer between nodes. MPI is the prevalent programming model for clusters, and it is fairly straightforward to understand and to use. Therefore, we often write applications in a way that accommodates this model, centered around data transfer. These applications usually work well for smaller problem sizes and for regular data structures. The larger the amount of data we have to churn and the more irregular the problem domain becomes, the worse the overall machine utilization and the (strong) scaling characteristics become. While it is not impossible to implement more dynamic, data driven, and asynchronous applications using MPI, it is somewhat difficult to do so. At the same time, if we look at applications that prefer to execute the code close to the locality where the data was placed, i.e., utilizing active messages (for instance based on Charm++), we see better asynchrony, simpler application codes, and improved scaling.
Favor message driven computation over message passing¶
Today’s prevalently used programming model on parallel (multi-node) systems is MPI. It is based on message passing, as the name implies, which means that the receiver has to be aware of a message about to come in. Both codes, the sender and the receiver, have to synchronize in order to perform the communication step. Even the newer, asynchronous interfaces require explicitly coding the algorithms around the required communication scheme. As a result, everything but the most trivial MPI applications spends a considerable amount of time waiting for incoming messages, thus, causing starvation and latencies to impede full resource utilization. The more complex and more dynamic the data structures and algorithms become, the larger the adverse effects. The community discovered message-driven and data-driven methods of implementing algorithms a long time ago, and systems such as Charm++ have already integrated active messages demonstrating the validity of the concept. Message-driven computation allows for sending messages without requiring the receiver to actively wait for them. Any incoming message is handled asynchronously and triggers the encoded action by passing along arguments and—possibly—continuations. HPX combines this scheme with work-queue based scheduling as described above, which allows the system to almost completely overlap any communication with useful work, thereby minimizing latencies.