add ch4

[book_gpu.git] / BookGPU / Chapters / chapter13 / ch12.tex~

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%                          %%
%%       CHAPTER 12         %%
%%                          %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
\chapterauthor{}{}
\chapter{Solving sparse linear systems with GMRES and CG methods on GPU clusters}

%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 1          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:01}
The sparse linear systems are used to model many scientific and industrial problems, such as the environmental simulations or
the industrial processing of the complex or non-Newtonian fluids. Moreover, the resolution of these problems often involves the
solving of such linear systems which is considered as the most expensive process in terms of time execution and memory space.
Therefore, solving sparse linear systems must be as efficient as possible in order to deal with problems of ever increasing size.

There are, in the jargon of numerical analysis, different methods of solving sparse linear systems that we can classify in two
classes: the direct and iterative methods. However, the iterative methods are often more suitable than their counterpart, direct
methods, for solving large sparse linear systems. Indeed, they are less memory consuming and easier to parallelize on parallel
computers than direct methods. Different computing platforms, sequential and parallel computers, are used for solving sparse
linear systems with iterative solutions. Nowadays, graphics processing units (GPUs) have become attractive for solving these
linear systems, due to their computing power and their ability to compute faster than traditional CPUs.

In Section~\ref{sec:02}, we describe the general principle of two well-known iterative methods: the conjugate gradient method and
the generalized minimal residual method. In Section~\ref{sec:03}, we give the main key points of the parallel implementation of both
methods on a cluster of GPUs. Then, in Section~\ref{sec:04}, we present the experimental results obtained on a CPU cluster and on
a GPU cluster, for solving sparse linear systems associated to matrices of different structures. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:05},
we apply the hypergraph partitioning technique to reduce the total communication volume between the computing nodes and, thus, to
improve the execution times of the parallel algorithms of both iterative methods.   


%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 2          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Krylov iterative methods}
\label{sec:02}
Let us consider the following system of $n$ linear equations in $\mathbb{R}$: 
\begin{equation}
Ax=b,
\label{eq:01}
\end{equation}
where $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is a sparse nonsingular square matrix, $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the solution vector,
$b\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the right-hand side and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is a large integer number. 

The iterative methods for solving the large sparse linear system~(\ref{eq:01}) proceed by successive iterations of a same
block of elementary operations, during which an infinite number of approximate solutions $\{x_k\}_{k\geq 0}$ are computed.
Indeed, from an initial guess $x_0$, an iterative method determines at each iteration $k>0$ an approximate solution $x_k$
which, gradually, converges to the exact solution $x^{*}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
x^{*}=\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}x_{k}=A^{-1}b.
\label{eq:02}
\end{equation}
The number of iterations necessary to reach the exact solution $x^{*}$ is not known beforehand and can be infinite. In
practice, an iterative method often finds an approximate solution $\tilde{x}$ after a fixed number of iterations and/or
when a given convergence criterion is satisfied as follows:   
\begin{equation}
\|b-A\tilde{x}\| < \varepsilon,
\label{eq:03}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon<1$ is the required convergence tolerance threshold. 

Some of the most iterative methods that have proven their efficiency for solving large sparse linear systems are those
called \textit{Krylov sub-space methods}~\cite{ref1}. In the present chapter, we describe two Krylov methods which are
widely used: the conjugate gradient method (CG) and the generalized minimal residual method (GMRES). In practice, the
Krylov sub-space methods are usually used with preconditioners that allow to improve their convergence. So, in what
follows, the CG and GMRES methods are used for solving the left-preconditioned sparse linear system:
\begin{equation}
M^{-1}Ax=M^{-1}b,
\label{eq:11}
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the preconditioning matrix.

%%****************%%
%%****************%%
\subsection{CG method}
\label{sec:02.01}
The conjugate gradient method is initially developed by Hestenes and Stiefel in 1952~\cite{ref2}. It is one of the well
known iterative method for solving large sparse linear systems. In addition, it can be adapted for solving nonlinear 
equations and optimization problems. However, it can only be applied to problems with positive definite symmetric matrices.

The main idea of the CG method is the computation of a sequence of approximate solutions $\{x_k\}_{k\geq 0}$ in a Krylov
sub-space of order $k$ as follows: 
\begin{equation}
x_k \in x_0 + \mathcal{K}_k(A,r_0),
\label{eq:04}
\end{equation}
such that the Galerkin condition must be satisfied:
\begin{equation}
r_k \bot \mathcal{K}_k(A,r_0),
\label{eq:05}
\end{equation}
where $x_0$ is the initial guess, $r_k=b-Ax_k$ is the residual of the computed solution $x_k$ and $\mathcal{K}_k$ the Krylov
sub-space of order $k$: \[\mathcal{K}_k(A,r_0) \equiv\text{span}\{r_0, Ar_0, A^2r_0,\ldots, A^{k-1}r_0\}.\]
In fact, CG is based on the construction of a sequence $\{p_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ of direction vectors in $\mathcal{K}_k$
which are pairwise $A$-conjugate ($A$-orthogonal):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
p_i^T A p_j = 0, & i\neq j. 
\end{array} 
\label{eq:06}
\end{equation}
At each iteration $k$, an approximate solution $x_k$ is computed by recurrence as follows:  
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
x_k = x_{k-1} + \alpha_k p_k, & \alpha_k\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{array} 
\label{eq:07}
\end{equation}
Consequently, the residuals $r_k$ are computed in the same way:
\begin{equation}
r_k = r_{k-1} - \alpha_k A p_k. 
\label{eq:08}
\end{equation}
In the case where all residuals are nonzero, the direction vectors $p_k$ can be determined so that the following recurrence 
holds:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
p_0=r_0, & p_k=r_k+\beta_k p_{k-1}, & \beta_k\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{array} 
\label{eq:09}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the scalars $\{\alpha_k\}_{k>0}$ are chosen so as to minimize the $A$-norm error $\|x^{*}-x_k\|_A$ over the Krylov
sub-space $\mathcal{K}_{k}$ and the scalars $\{\beta_k\}_{k>0}$ are chosen so as to ensure that the direction vectors are
pairwise $A$-conjugate. So, the assumption that matrix $A$ is symmetric and the recurrences~(\ref{eq:08}) and~(\ref{eq:09})
allow to deduce that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_{k}=\frac{r^{T}_{k-1}r_{k-1}}{p_{k}^{T}Ap_{k}}, & \beta_{k}=\frac{r_{k}^{T}r_{k}}{r_{k-1}^{T}r_{k-1}}.
\end{array}
\label{eq:10}
\end{equation}

Algorithm~\ref{alg:01} shows the main key points of the preconditioned CG method. It allows to solve the left-preconditioned
sparse linear system~(\ref{eq:11}). In this algorithm, $\varepsilon$ is the convergence tolerance threshold, $maxiter$ is the maximum
number of iterations and $(\cdot,\cdot)$ defines the dot product between two vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. At every iteration, a direction
vector $p_k$ is determined, so that it is orthogonal to the preconditioned residual $z_k$ and to the direction vectors $\{p_i\}_{i<k}$
previously determined (from line~$8$ to line~$13$). Then, at lines~$16$ and~$17$ , the iterate $x_k$ and the residual $r_k$ are computed
using formulas~(\ref{eq:07}) and~(\ref{eq:08}), respectively. The CG method converges after, at most, $n$ iterations. In practice, the CG
algorithm stops when the tolerance threshold $\varepsilon$ and/or the maximum number of iterations $maxiter$ are reached.

\begin{algorithm}
  \SetLine
  \linesnumbered
  Choose an initial guess $x_0$\;
  $r_{0} = b - A x_{0}$\;
  $convergence$ = false\;
  $k = 1$\;
  \Repeat{convergence}{
    $z_{k} = M^{-1} r_{k-1}$\;
    $\rho_{k} = (r_{k-1},z_{k})$\;
    \eIf{$k = 1$}{
      $p_{k} = z_{k}$\;
    }{
      $\beta_{k} = \rho_{k} / \rho_{k-1}$\;
      $p_{k} = z_{k} + \beta_{k} \times p_{k-1}$\;
    }
    $q_{k} = A \times p_{k}$\;
    $\alpha_{k} = \rho_{k} / (p_{k},q_{k})$\;
    $x_{k} = x_{k-1} + \alpha_{k} \times p_{k}$\;
    $r_{k} = r_{k-1} - \alpha_{k} \times q_{k}$\;
    \eIf{$(\rho_{k} < \varepsilon)$ {\bf or} $(k \geq maxiter)$}{
      $convergence$ = true\;
    }{
      $k = k + 1$\;
    }
  }
\caption{Left-preconditioned CG method}
\label{alg:01}
\end{algorithm}

%%****************%%
%%****************%%
\subsection{GMRES method} 
\label{sec:02.02}
The iterative method GMRES is developed by Saad and Schultz in 1986~\cite{ref3} as a generalization of the minimum residual method
MINRES~\cite{ref4}. Indeed, GMRES can be applied for solving symmetric or asymmetric linear systems. 

The main principle of the GMRES method is to find an approximation minimizing at best the residual norm. In fact, GMRES
computes a sequence of approximate solutions $\{x_k\}_{k>0}$ in a Krylov sub-space $\mathcal{K}_k$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
x_k \in x_0 + \mathcal{K}_k(A, v_1),& v_1=\frac{r_0}{\|r_0\|_2},
\end{array}
\label{eq:12}
\end{equation} 
so that the Petrov-Galerkin condition is satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
r_k \bot A \mathcal{K}_k(A, v_1).
\end{array}
\label{eq:13}
\end{equation}
GMRES uses the Arnoldi process~\cite{ref5} to construct an orthonormal basis $V_k$ for the Krylov sub-space $\mathcal{K}_k$
and an upper Hessenberg matrix $\bar{H}_k$ of order $(k+1)\times k$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
V_k = \{v_1, v_2,\ldots,v_k\}, & \forall k>1, v_k=A^{k-1}v_1,
\end{array}
\label{eq:14}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
V_k A = V_{k+1} \bar{H}_k.
\label{eq:15}
\end{equation}

Then, at each iteration $k$, an approximate solution $x_k$ is computed in the Krylov sub-space $\mathcal{K}_k$ spanned by $V_k$
as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
x_k = x_0 + V_k y, & y\in\mathbb{R}^{k}.
\end{array}
\label{eq:16}
\end{equation}
From both formulas~(\ref{eq:15}) and~(\ref{eq:16}) and $r_k=b-Ax_k$, we can deduce that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
  r_{k} & = & b - A (x_{0} + V_{k}y) \\
        & = & r_{0} - AV_{k}y \\
        & = & \beta v_{1} - V_{k+1}\bar{H}_{k}y \\
        & = & V_{k+1}(\beta e_{1} - \bar{H}_{k}y),
\end{array}
\label{eq:17}
\end{equation}
such that $\beta=\|r_0\|_2$ and $e_1=(1,0,\cdots,0)$ is the first vector of the canonical basis of $\mathbb{R}^k$. So,
the vector $y$ is chosen in $\mathbb{R}^k$ so as to minimize at best the Euclidean norm of the residual $r_k$. Consequently,
a linear least-squares problem of size $k$ is solved:
\begin{equation}
\underset{y\in\mathbb{R}^{k}}{min}\|r_{k}\|_{2}=\underset{y\in\mathbb{R}^{k}}{min}\|\beta e_{1}-\bar{H}_{k}y\|_{2}.
\label{eq:18}
\end{equation}
The QR factorization of matrix $\bar{H}_k$ is used to compute the solution of this problem by using Givens rotations~\cite{ref1,ref3},
such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\bar{H}_{k}=Q_{k}R_{k}, & Q_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{(k+1)\times (k+1)}, & R_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{(k+1)\times k},
\end{array}
\label{eq:19}
\end{equation}
where $Q_kQ_k^T=I_k$ and $R_k$ is an upper triangular matrix.

The GMRES method computes an approximate solution with a sufficient precision after, at most, $n$ iterations ($n$ is the size of the 
sparse linear system to be solved). However, the GMRES algorithm must construct and store in the memory an orthonormal basis $V_k$ whose
size is proportional to the number of iterations required to achieve the convergence. Then, to avoid a huge memory storage, the GMRES
method must be restarted at each $m$ iterations, such that $m$ is very small ($m\ll n$), and with $x_m$ as the initial guess to the
next iteration. This allows to limit the size of the basis $V$ to $m$ orthogonal vectors.

Algorithm~\ref{alg:02} shows the main key points of the GMRES method with restarts. It solves the left-preconditioned sparse linear
system~(\ref{eq:11}), such that $M$ is the preconditioning matrix. At each iteration $k$, GMRES uses the Arnoldi process (defined
from line~$7$ to line~$17$) to construct a basis $V_m$ of $m$ orthogonal vectors and an upper Hessenberg matrix $\bar{H}_m$ of size
$(m+1)\times m$. Then, it solves the linear least-squares problem of size $m$ to find the vector $y\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ which minimizes
at best the residual norm (line~$18$). Finally, it computes an approximate solution $x_m$ in the Krylov sub-space spanned by $V_m$ 
(line~$19$). The GMRES algorithm is stopped when the residual norm is sufficiently small ($\|r_m\|_2<\varepsilon$) and/or the maximum
number of iterations ($maxiter$) is reached.

\begin{algorithm}
  \SetLine
  \linesnumbered
  Choose an initial guess $x_0$\;
  $convergence$ = false\;
  $k = 1$\;
  $r_{0} = M^{-1}(b-Ax_{0})$\;
  $\beta = \|r_{0}\|_{2}$\;
  \While{$\neg convergence$}{
    $v_{1} = r_{0}/\beta$\;
    \For{$j=1$ \KwTo $m$}{ 
      $w_{j} = M^{-1}Av_{j}$\;
      \For{$i=1$ \KwTo $j$}{
        $h_{i,j} = (w_{j},v_{i})$\;
        $w_{j} = w_{j}-h_{i,j}v_{i}$\;
      }
      $h_{j+1,j} = \|w_{j}\|_{2}$\;
      $v_{j+1} = w_{j}/h_{j+1,j}$\;
    }
    Set $V_{m}=\{v_{j}\}_{1\leq j \leq m}$ and $\bar{H}_{m}=(h_{i,j})$ a $(m+1)\times m$ upper Hessenberg matrix\;
    Solve a least-squares problem of size $m$: $min_{y\in\mathrm{I\!R}^{m}}\|\beta e_{1}-\bar{H}_{m}y\|_{2}$\;
    $x_{m} = x_{0}+V_{m}y_{m}$\;
    $r_{m} = M^{-1}(b-Ax_{m})$\;
    $\beta = \|r_{m}\|_{2}$\;   
    \eIf{ $(\beta<\varepsilon)$ {\bf or} $(k\geq maxiter)$}{
      $convergence$ = true\;
    }{
      $x_{0} = x_{m}$\;
      $r_{0} = r_{m}$\;
      $k = k + 1$\;
    }
  }
\caption{Left-preconditioned GMRES method with restarts}
\label{alg:02}
\end{algorithm}


%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 3          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Parallel implementation on a GPU cluster}
\label{sec:03}
In this section, we present the parallel algorithms of both iterative CG and GMRES methods for GPU clusters.
The implementation is performed on a GPU cluster composed of different computing nodes, such that each node
is a CPU core managed by a MPI process and equipped with a GPU card. The parallelization of these algorithms
is carried out by using the MPI communication routines between the GPU computing nodes and the CUDA programming
environment inside each node. In what follows, the algorithms of the iterative methods are called iterative
solvers.

%%****************%%
%%****************%%
\subsection{Data partitioning}
\label{sec:03.01}
The parallel solving of the large sparse linear system~(\ref{eq:11}) requires a data partitioning between the computing
nodes of the GPU cluster. Let $p$ denotes the number of the computing nodes on the GPU cluster. The partitioning operation
consists in the decomposition of the vectors and matrices, involved in the iterative solver, in $p$ portions. Indeed, this
operation allows to assign to each computing node $i$:
\begin{itemize*}
\item a portion of size $\frac{n}{p}$ elements of each vector,
\item a sparse rectangular sub-matrix $A_i$ of size $(n,\frac{n}{p})$ and,
\item a square preconditioning sub-matrix $M_i$ of size $(\frac{n}{p},\frac{n}{p})$, 
\end{itemize*} 
where $n$ is the size of the sparse linear system to be solved. In the first instance, we perform a naive row-wise partitioning
(decomposition row-by-row) on the data of the sparse linear systems to be solved. Figure~\ref{fig:01} shows an example of a row-wise
data partitioning between four computing nodes of a sparse linear system (sparse matrix $A$, solution vector $x$ and right-hand
side $b$) of size $16$ unknown values. 

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/partition}}
\caption{A data partitioning of the sparse matrix $A$, the solution vector $x$ and the right-hand side $b$ into four portions.}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure}

%%****************%%
%%****************%%
\subsection{GPU computing}
\label{sec:03.02}
After the partitioning operation, all the data involved from this operation must be transferred from the CPU memories to the GPU
memories, in order to be processed by GPUs. We use two functions of the CUBLAS library (CUDA Basic Linear Algebra Subroutines),
developed by Nvidia~\cite{ref6}: \verb+cublasAlloc()+ for the memory allocations on GPUs and \verb+cublasSetVector()+ for the
memory copies from the CPUs to the GPUs.

An efficient implementation of CG and GMRES solvers on a GPU cluster requires to determine all parts of their codes that can be
executed in parallel and, thus, take advantage of the GPU acceleration. As many Krylov sub-space methods, the CG and GMRES methods
are mainly based on arithmetic operations dealing with vectors or matrices: sparse matrix-vector multiplications, scalar-vector
multiplications, dot products, Euclidean norms, AXPY operations ($y\leftarrow ax+y$ where $x$ and $y$ are vectors and $a$ is a
scalar) and so on. These vector operations are often easy to parallelize and they are more efficient on parallel computers when
they work on large vectors. Therefore, all the vector operations used in CG and GMRES solvers must be executed by the GPUs as kernels.

We use the kernels of the CUBLAS library to compute some vector operations of CG and GMRES solvers. The following kernels of CUBLAS
(dealing with double floating point) are used: \verb+cublasDdot()+ for the dot products, \verb+cublasDnrm2()+ for the Euclidean
norms and \verb+cublasDaxpy()+ for the AXPY operations. For the rest of the data-parallel operations, we code their kernels in CUDA.
In the CG solver, we develop a kernel for the XPAY operation ($y\leftarrow x+ay$) used at line~$12$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:01}. In the
GMRES solver, we program a kernel for the scalar-vector multiplication (lines~$7$ and~$15$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg:02}), a kernel for
solving the least-squares problem and a kernel for the elements updates of the solution vector $x$.

The least-squares problem in the GMRES method is solved by performing a QR factorization on the Hessenberg matrix $\bar{H}_m$ with
plane rotations and, then, solving the triangular system by backward substitutions to compute $y$. Consequently, solving the least-squares
problem on the GPU is not interesting. Indeed, the triangular solves are not easy to parallelize and inefficient on GPUs. However,
the least-squares problem to solve in the GMRES method with restarts has, generally, a very small size $m$. Therefore, we develop
an inexpensive kernel which must be executed in sequential by a single CUDA thread. 

The most important operation in CG and GMRES methods is the sparse matrix-vector multiplication (SpMV), because it is often an
expensive operation in terms of execution time and memory space. Moreover, it requires to take care of the storage format of the
sparse matrix in the memory. Indeed, the naive storage, row-by-row or column-by-column, of a sparse matrix can cause a significant
waste of memory space and execution time. In addition, the sparsity nature of the matrix often leads to irregular memory accesses
to read the matrix nonzero values. So, the computation of the SpMV multiplication on GPUs can involve non coalesced accesses to
the global memory, which slows down even more its performances. One of the most efficient compressed storage formats of sparse
matrices on GPUs is HYB format~\cite{ref7}. It is a combination of ELLpack (ELL) and Coordinate (COO) formats. Indeed, it stores
a typical number of nonzero values per row in ELL format and remaining entries of exceptional rows in COO format. It combines
the efficiency of ELL due to the regularity of its memory accesses and the flexibility of COO which is insensitive to the matrix
structure. Consequently, we use the HYB kernel~\cite{ref8} developed by Nvidia to implement the SpMV multiplication of CG and
GMRES methods on GPUs. Moreover, to avoid the non coalesced accesses to the high-latency global memory, we fill the elements of
the iterate vector $x$ in the cached texture memory.

%%****************%%
%%****************%%
\subsection{Data communications}
\label{sec:03.03}
All the computing nodes of the GPU cluster execute in parallel the same iterative solver (Algorithm~\ref{alg:01} or Algorithm~\ref{alg:02})
adapted to GPUs, but on their own portions of the sparse linear system: $M^{-1}_iA_ix_i=M^{-1}_ib_i$, $0\leq i<p$. However in order to solve
the complete sparse linear system~(\ref{eq:11}), synchronizations must be performed between the local computations of the computing nodes
over the cluster. In what follows, two computing nodes sharing data are called neighboring nodes.

As already mentioned, the most important operation of CG and GMRES methods is the SpMV multiplication. In the parallel implementation of
the iterative methods, each computing node $i$ performs the SpMV multiplication on its own sparse rectangular sub-matrix $A_i$. Locally, it
has only sub-vectors of size $\frac{n}{p}$ corresponding to rows of its sub-matrix $A_i$. However, it also requires the vector elements
of its neighbors, corresponding to the column indices on which its sub-matrix has nonzero values (see Figure~\ref{fig:01}). So, in addition
to the local vectors, each node must also manage vector elements shared with neighbors and required to compute the SpMV multiplication.
Therefore, the iterate vector $x$ managed by each computing node is composed of a local sub-vector $x^{local}$ of size $\frac{n}{p}$ and a
sub-vector of shared elements $x^{shared}$. In the same way, the vector used to construct the orthonormal basis of the Krylov sub-space 
(vectors $p$ and $v$ in CG and GMRES methods, respectively) is composed of a local sub-vector and a shared sub-vector. 

Therefore, before computing the SpMV multiplication, the neighboring nodes over the GPU cluster must exchange between them the shared 
vector elements necessary to compute this multiplication. First, each computing node determines, in its local sub-vector, the vector
elements needed by other nodes. Then, the neighboring nodes exchange between them these shared vector elements. The data exchanges 
are implemented by using the MPI point-to-point communication routines: blocking sends with \verb+MPI_Send()+ and nonblocking receives
with \verb+MPI_Irecv()+. Figure~\ref{fig:02} shows an example of data exchanges between \textit{Node 1} and its neighbors \textit{Node 0},
\textit{Node 2} and \textit{Node 3}. In this example, the iterate matrix $A$ split between these four computing nodes is that presented
in Figure~\ref{fig:01}.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/compress}}
\caption{Data exchanges between \textit{Node 1} and its neighbors \textit{Node 0}, \textit{Node 2} and \textit{Node 3}.}
\label{fig:02}
\end{figure}

After the synchronization operation, the computing nodes receive, from their respective neighbors, the shared elements in a sub-vector
stored in a compressed format. However, in order to compute the SpMV multiplication, the computing nodes operate on sparse global vectors
(see Figure~\ref{fig:02}). In this case, the received vector elements must be copied to the corresponding indices in the global vector.
So as not to need to perform this at each iteration, we propose to reorder the columns of each sub-matrix $\{A_i\}_{0\leq i<p}$, so that
the shared sub-vectors could be used in their compressed storage formats. Figure~\ref{fig:03} shows a reordering of a sparse sub-matrix
(sub-matrix of \textit{Node 1}). Furthermore, we use the texture memory to cache the global vector. This allows to avoid the non coalesced
accesses to the GPU global memory. 

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/reorder}}
\caption{Columns reordering of a sparse sub-matrix.}
\label{fig:03}
\end{figure}

A GPU cluster is a parallel platform with a distributed memory. So, the synchronizations and communication data between GPU nodes are
carried out by passing messages. However, GPUs can not communicate between them in direct way. Then, CPUs via MPI processes are in charge
of the synchronizations within the GPU cluster. Consequently, the vector elements to be exchanged must be copied from the GPU memory
to the CPU memory and vice-versa before and after the synchronization operation between CPUs. We have used the CBLAS communication subroutines
to perform the data transfers between a CPU core and its GPU: \verb+cublasGetVector()+ and \verb+cublasSetVector()+. Finally, in addition
to the data exchanges, GPU nodes perform reduction operations to compute in parallel the dot products and Euclidean norms. This is implemented
by using the MPI global communication \verb+MPI_Allreduce()+.


%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 4          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Experimental results}
\label{sec:04}
In this section, we present the performances of the parallel CG and GMRES linear solvers obtained on a cluster of $12$ GPUs. Indeed, this GPU
cluster of tests is composed of six machines connected by $20$Gbps InfiniBand network. Each machine is a Quad-Core Xeon E5530 CPU running at
$2.4$GHz and providing $12$GB of RAM with a memory bandwidth of $25.6$GB/s. In addition, two Tesla C1060 GPUs are connected to each machine via
a PCI-Express 16x Gen 2.0 interface with a throughput of $8$GB/s. A Tesla C1060 GPU contains $240$ cores running at $1.3$GHz and providing a
global memory of $4$GB with a memory bandwidth of $102$GB/s. Figure~\ref{fig:04} shows the general scheme of the GPU cluster that we used in
the experimental tests.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/cluster}}
\caption{General scheme of the GPU cluster of tests composed of six machines, each with two GPUs.}
\label{fig:04}
\end{figure}

Linux cluster version 2.6.39 OS is installed on CPUs. C programming language is used for coding the parallel algorithms of both methods on the
GPU cluster. CUDA version 4.0~\cite{ref9} is used for programming GPUs, using CUBLAS library~\cite{ref6} to deal with vector operations in GPUs
and, finally, MPI routines of OpenMPI 1.3.3 are used to carry out the communications between CPU cores. Indeed, the experiments are done on a
cluster of $12$ computing nodes, where each node is managed by a MPI process and it is composed of one CPU core and one GPU card.

All tests are made on double-precision floating point operations. The parameters of both linear solvers are initialized as follows: the residual
tolerance threshold $\varepsilon=10^{-12}$, the maximum number of iterations $maxiter=500$, the right-hand side $b$ is filled with $1.0$ and the
initial guess $x_0$ is filled with $0.0$. In addition, we limited the Arnoldi process used in the GMRES method to $16$ iterations ($m=16$). For
the sake of simplicity, we have chosen the preconditioner $M$ as the main diagonal of the sparse matrix $A$. Indeed, it allows to easily compute
the required inverse matrix $M^{-1}$ and it provides a relatively good preconditioning for not too ill-conditioned matrices. In the GPU computing,
the size of thread blocks is fixed to $512$ threads. Finally, the performance results, presented hereafter, are obtained from the mean value over
$10$ executions of the same parallel linear solver and for the same input data.

To get more realistic results, we tested the CG and GMRES algorithms on sparse matrices of the Davis's collection~\cite{ref10}, that arise in a wide
spectrum of real-world applications. We chose six symmetric sparse matrices and six nonsymmetric ones from this collection. In Figure~\ref{fig:05},
we show structures of these matrices and in Table~\ref{tab:01} we present their main characteristics which are the number of rows, the total number
of nonzero values (nnz) and the maximal bandwidth. In the present chapter, the bandwidth of a sparse matrix is defined as the number of matrix columns
separating the first and the last nonzero value on a matrix row.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/matrices}}
\caption{Sketches of sparse matrices chosen from the Davis's collection.}
\label{fig:05}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Matrix type}             & {\bf Matrix name} & {\bf \# rows} & {\bf \# nnz} & {\bf Bandwidth} \\ \hline \hline

\multirow{6}{*}{Symmetric}    & 2cubes\_sphere    & $101,492$     & $1,647,264$  & $100,464$ \\

                              & ecology2          & $999,999$     & $4,995,991$  & $2,001$   \\ 

                              & finan512          & $74,752$      & $596,992$    & $74,725$  \\ 

                              & G3\_circuit       & $1,585,478$   & $7,660,826$  & $1,219,059$ \\
            
                              & shallow\_water2   & $81,920$      & $327,680$    & $58,710$ \\

                              & thermal2          & $1,228,045$   & $8,580,313$  & $1,226,629$ \\ \hline \hline
            
\multirow{6}{*}{Nonsymmetric} & cage13            & $445,315$     & $7,479,343$  & $318,788$\\

                              & crashbasis        & $160,000$     & $1,750,416$  & $120,202$ \\

                              & FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $147,900$     & $3,489.300$  & $117,827$ \\

                              & language          & $399,130$     & $1,216,334$  & $398,622$\\
 
                              & poli\_large       & $15,575$      & $33,074$     & $15,575$ \\

                              & torso3            & $259,156$     & $4,429,042$  & $216,854$  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{Main characteristics of sparse matrices chosen from the Davis's collection.}
\label{tab:01}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}     & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$  & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$     & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $0.132s$           & $0.069s$            & $1.93$        & $12$           & $1.14e$-$09$     & $3.47e$-$18$ \\

ecology2          & $0.026s$           & $0.017s$            & $1.52$        & $13$           & $5.06e$-$09$     & $8.33e$-$17$ \\

finan512          & $0.053s$           & $0.036s$            & $1.49$        & $12$           & $3.52e$-$09$     & $1.66e$-$16$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $0.704s$           & $0.466s$            & $1.51$        & $16$           & $4.16e$-$10$     & $4.44e$-$16$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $0.017s$           & $0.010s$            & $1.68$        & $5$            & $2.24e$-$14$     & $3.88e$-$26$ \\

thermal2          & $1.172s$           & $0.622s$            & $1.88$        & $15$           & $5.11e$-$09$     & $3.33e$-$16$ \\ \hline   
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel CG method on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. on a cluster of 12 GPUs.}
\label{tab:02}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}     & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$  & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$     & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $0.234s$           & $0.124s$            & $1.88$        & $21$           & $2.10e$-$14$     & $3.47e$-$18$ \\

ecology2          & $0.076s$           & $0.035s$            & $2.15$        & $21$           & $4.30e$-$13$     & $4.38e$-$15$ \\

finan512          & $0.073s$           & $0.052s$            & $1.40$        & $17$           & $3.21e$-$12$     & $5.00e$-$16$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $1.016s$           & $0.649s$            & $1.56$        & $22$           & $1.04e$-$12$     & $2.00e$-$15$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $0.061s$           & $0.044s$            & $1.38$        & $17$           & $5.42e$-$22$     & $2.71e$-$25$ \\

thermal2          & $1.666s$           & $0.880s$            & $1.89$        & $21$           & $6.58e$-$12$     & $2.77e$-$16$ \\ \hline \hline

cage13            & $0.721s$           & $0.338s$            & $2.13$        & $26$           & $3.37e$-$11$     & $2.66e$-$15$ \\

crashbasis        & $1.349s$           & $0.830s$            & $1.62$        & $121$          & $9.10e$-$12$     & $6.90e$-$12$ \\

FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $0.797s$           & $0.419s$            & $1.90$        & $64$           & $3.87e$-$09$     & $9.09e$-$13$ \\

language          & $2.252s$           & $1.204s$            & $1.87$        & $90$           & $1.18e$-$10$     & $8.00e$-$11$ \\

poli\_large       & $0.097s$           & $0.095s$            & $1.02$        & $69$           & $4.98e$-$11$     & $1.14e$-$12$ \\

torso3            & $4.242s$           & $2.030s$            & $2.09$        & $175$          & $2.69e$-$10$     & $1.78e$-$14$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel GMRES method on a cluster 24 CPU cores vs. on cluster of 12 GPUs.}
\label{tab:03}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Tables~\ref{tab:02} and~\ref{tab:03} shows the performances of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers, respectively, for solving linear systems associated to
the sparse matrices presented in Tables~\ref{tab:01}. They allow to compare the performances obtained on a cluster of $24$ CPU cores and on a cluster
of $12$ GPUs. However, Table~\ref{tab:02} shows only the solving performances of symmetric sparse linear systems, due to the inability of the CG method
to solve the nonsymmetric systems. In both tables, the second and third columns give, respectively, the execution times in seconds obtained on $24$ CPU
cores($Time_{gpu}$) and that obtained on $12$ GPUs ($Time_{gpu}$). Moreover, we take into account the relative gains $\tau$ of a solver implemented on the
GPU cluster compared to the same solver implemented on the CPU cluster. The relative gains, presented in the fourth column, are computed as a ratio of
the CPU execution time over the GPU execution time:
\begin{equation}
\tau = \frac{Time_{cpu}}{Time_{gpu}}.
\label{eq:20}
\end{equation}
In addition, Tables~\ref{tab:02} and~\ref{tab:03} give the number of iterations ($iter$), the precision $prec$ of the solution computed on the GPU cluster
and the difference $\Delta$ between the solution computed on the CPU cluster and that computed on the GPU cluster. Both parameters $prec$ and $\Delta$
allow to validate and verify the accuracy of the solution computed on the GPU cluster. We have computed them as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta = max|x^{cpu}-x^{gpu}|,\\
prec = max|M^{-1}r^{gpu}|,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta$ is the maximum vector element, in absolute value, of the difference between the two solutions $x^{cpu}$ and $x^{gpu}$ computed, respectively,
on CPU and GPU cluster and $prec$ is the maximum element, in absolute value, of the residual vector $r^{gpu}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ of the solution $x^{gpu}$.
Thus, we can see that the solutions obtained on the GPU cluster were computed with a sufficient accuracy (about $10^{-10}$) and they are, more or less,
equivalent to those computed on the CPU cluster with a small difference ranging from $10^{-10}$ and $10^{-26}$. However, we can notice from the relative
gains $\tau$ that is not interesting to use multiple GPUs for solving small sparse linear systems. in fact, a small sparse matrix does not allow to maximize
utilization of GPU cores. In addition, the communications required to synchronize the computations over the cluster increase the idle times of GPUs and
slow down further the parallel computations.

Consequently, in order to test the performances of the parallel solvers, we developed in C programming language a generator of large sparse matrices. 
This generator takes a matrix from the Davis's collection~\cite{ref10} as an initial matrix to construct large sparse matrices exceeding ten million
of rows. It must be executed in parallel by the MPI processes of the computing nodes, so that each process could construct its sparse sub-matrix. In
first experimental tests, we are focused on sparse matrices having a banded structure, because they are those arise in the most of numerical problems.
So to generate the global sparse matrix, each MPI process constructs its sub-matrix by performing several copies of an initial sparse matrix chosen
from the Davis's collection. Then, it puts all these copies on the main diagonal of the global matrix (see Figure~\ref{fig:06}). Moreover, the empty
spaces between two successive copies in the main diagonal are filled with sub-copies (left-copy and right-copy in Figure~\ref{fig:06}) of the same
initial matrix.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/generation}}
\caption{Parallel generation of a large sparse matrix by four computing nodes.}
\label{fig:06}
\end{figure}

We have used the parallel CG and GMRES algorithms for solving sparse linear systems of $25$ million of unknown values. The sparse matrices associated 
to these linear systems are generated from those presented in Table~\ref{tab:01}. Their main characteristics are given in Table~\ref{tab:04}. Tables~\ref{tab:05}
and~\ref{tab:06} shows the performances of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers, respectively, obtained on a cluster of $24$ CPU cores and on a cluster 
of $12$ GPUs. Obviously, we can notice from these tables that solving large sparse linear systems on a GPU cluster is more efficient than on a CPU 
cluster (see relative gains $\tau$). We can also notice that the execution times of the CG method, whether in a CPU cluster or on a GPU cluster, are
better than those the GMRES method for solving large symmetric linear systems. In fact, the CG method is characterized by a better convergence rate 
and a shorter execution time of an iteration than those of the GMRES method. Moreover, an iteration of the parallel GMRES method requires more data
exchanges between computing nodes compared to the parallel CG method.
 
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{\bf Matrix type}             & {\bf Matrix name} & {\bf \# nnz} & {\bf Bandwidth} \\ \hline \hline

\multirow{6}{*}{Symmetric}    & 2cubes\_sphere    & $413,703,602$ & $198,836$     \\

                              & ecology2          & $124,948,019$ & $2,002$          \\ 

                              & finan512          & $278,175,945$ & $123,900$        \\ 

                              & G3\_circuit       & $125,262,292$ & $1,891,887$      \\
            
                              & shallow\_water2   & $100,235,292$ & $62,806$      \\

                              & thermal2          & $175,300,284$ & $2,421,285$ \\ \hline \hline
            
\multirow{6}{*}{Nonsymmetric} & cage13            & $435,770,480$ & $352,566$        \\

                              & crashbasis        & $409,291,236$ & $200,203$        \\

                              & FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $595,266,787$ & $206,029$ \\

                              & language          & $76,912,824$  & $398,626$ \\

                              & poli\_large       & $53,322,580$  & $15,576$         \\

                              & torso3            & $433,795,264$ & $328,757$        \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{Main characteristics of sparse banded matrices generated from those of the Davis's collection.}
\label{tab:04}
\end{table}
 
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}    & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$ & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere  & $1.625s$             & $0.401s$              & $4.05$          & $14$                & $5.73e$-$11$     & $5.20e$-$18$ \\

ecology2        & $0.856s$             & $0.103s$              & $8.27$          & $15$                & $3.75e$-$10$     & $1.11e$-$16$ \\

finan512        & $1.210s$             & $0.354s$              & $3.42$          & $14$                & $1.04e$-$10$     & $2.77e$-$16$ \\

G3\_circuit     & $1.346s$             & $0.263s$              & $5.12$          & $17$                & $1.10e$-$10$     & $5.55e$-$16$ \\

shallow\_water2 & $0.397s$             & $0.055s$              & $7.23$          & $7$                 & $3.43e$-$15$     & $5.17e$-$26$ \\

thermal2        & $1.411s$             & $0.244s$              & $5.78$          & $16$                & $1.67e$-$09$     & $3.88e$-$16$ \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel CG method for solving linear systems associated to sparse banded matrices on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. 
on a cluster of 12 GPUs.}
\label{tab:05}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}      & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$ & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $3.597s$             & $0.514s$              & $6.99$          & $21$                & $2.11e$-$14$     & $8.67e$-$18$ \\

ecology2          & $2.549s$             & $0.288s$              & $8.83$          & $21$                & $4.88e$-$13$     & $2.08e$-$14$ \\

finan512          & $2.660s$             & $0.377s$              & $7.05$          & $17$                & $3.22e$-$12$     & $8.82e$-$14$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $3.139s$             & $0.480s$              & $6.53$          & $22$                & $1.04e$-$12$     & $5.00e$-$15$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $2.195s$             & $0.253s$              & $8.68$          & $17$                & $5.54e$-$21$     & $7.92e$-$24$ \\

thermal2          & $3.206s$             & $0.463s$              & $6.93$          & $21$                & $8.89e$-$12$     & $3.33e$-$16$ \\ \hline \hline

cage13            & $5.560s$             & $0.663s$              & $8.39$          & $26$                & $3.29e$-$11$     & $1.59e$-$14$ \\

crashbasis        & $25.802s$            & $3.511s$              & $7.35$          & $135$               & $6.81e$-$11$     & $4.61e$-$15$ \\

FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $13.281s$            & $1.572s$              & $8.45$          & $64$                & $3.88e$-$09$     & $1.82e$-$12$ \\

language          & $12.553s$            & $1.760s$              & $7.13$          & $89$                & $2.11e$-$10$     & $1.60e$-$10$ \\

poli\_large       & $8.515s$             & $1.053s$              & $8.09$          & $69$                & $5.05e$-$11$     & $6.59e$-$12$ \\

torso3            & $31.463s$            & $3.681s$              & $8.55$          & $175$               & $2.69e$-$10$     & $2.66e$-$14$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel GMRES method for solving linear systems associated to sparse banded matrices on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. 
on a cluster of 12 GPUs.}
\label{tab:06}
\end{center}
\end{table}


%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 5          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Hypergraph partitioning}
\label{sec:05}
In this section, we present the performances of both parallel CG and GMRES solvers for solving linear systems associated to sparse matrices having
large bandwidths. Indeed, we are interested on sparse matrices having the nonzero values distributed along their bandwidths. 

We have developed in C programming language a generator of large sparse matrices having five bands distributed along their bandwidths (see Figure~\ref{fig:07}).
The principle of this generator is equivalent to that in Section~\ref{sec:04}. However, the copies performed on the initial matrix (chosen from the
Davis's collection) are placed on the main diagonal and on four off-diagonals, two on the right and two on the left of the main diagonal. Figure~\ref{fig:07}
shows an example of a generation of a sparse five-bands matrix by four computing nodes. Table~\ref{tab:07} shows the main characteristics of sparse
five-bands matrices generated from those presented in Table~\ref{tab:01} and associated to linear systems of $25$ million of unknown values.   

\begin{figure}[!h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.23]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/generation_1}}
\caption{Parallel generation of a large sparse five-bands matrix by four computing nodes.}
\label{fig:07}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix type}             & {\bf Matrix name} & {\bf \# nnz}  & {\bf Bandwidth} \\ \hline \hline

\multirow{6}{*}{Symmetric}    & 2cubes\_sphere    & $829,082,728$ & $24,999,999$     \\

                              & ecology2          & $254,892,056$ & $25,000,000$     \\ 

                              & finan512          & $556,982,339$ & $24,999,973$     \\ 

                              & G3\_circuit       & $257,982,646$ & $25,000,000$     \\
            
                              & shallow\_water2   & $200,798,268$ & $25,000,000$     \\

                              & thermal2          & $359,340,179$ & $24,999,998$     \\ \hline \hline
            
\multirow{6}{*}{Nonsymmetric} & cage13            & $879,063,379$ & $24,999,998$     \\

                              & crashbasis        & $820,373,286$ & $24,999,803$     \\

                              & FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $1,194,012,703$ & $24,999,998$     \\

                              & language          & $155,261,826$ & $24,999,492$     \\

                              & poli\_large       & $106,680,819$ & $25,000,000$    \\

                              & torso3            & $872,029,998$ & $25,000,000$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Main characteristics of sparse five-bands matrices generated from those of the Davis's collection.}
\label{tab:07}
\end{center}
\end{table}


\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}      & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$ & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $6.041s$     & $3.338s$      & $1.81$ & $30$ & $6.77e$-$11$ & $3.25e$-$19$ \\

ecology2          & $1.404s$     & $1.301s$      & $1.08$ & $13$     & $5.22e$-$11$ & $2.17e$-$18$ \\

finan512          & $1.822s$     & $1.299s$      & $1.40$ & $12$     & $3.52e$-$11$ & $3.47e$-$18$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $2.331s$     & $2.129s$      & $1.09$ & $15$     & $1.36e$-$11$ & $5.20e$-$18$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $0.541s$     & $0.504s$      & $1.07$ & $6$      & $2.12e$-$16$ & $5.05e$-$28$ \\

thermal2          & $2.549s$     & $1.705s$      & $1.49$ & $14$     & $2.36e$-$10$ & $5.20e$-$18$ \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of parallel CG solver for solving linear systems associated to sparse five-bands matrices
on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. on a cluster of 12 GPUs}
\label{tab:08}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}      & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{\# iter.}$ & $\mathbf{prec.}$ & $\mathbf{\Delta}$   \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $15.963s$    & $7.250s$      & $2.20$  & $58$     & $6.23e$-$16$ & $3.25e$-$19$ \\

ecology2          & $3.549s$     & $2.176s$      & $1.63$  & $21$     & $4.78e$-$15$ & $1.06e$-$15$ \\

finan512          & $3.862s$     & $1.934s$      & $1.99$  & $17$     & $3.21e$-$14$ & $8.43e$-$17$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $4.636s$     & $2.811s$      & $1.65$  & $22$     & $1.08e$-$14$ & $1.77e$-$16$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $2.738s$     & $1.539s$      & $1.78$  & $17$     & $5.54e$-$23$ & $3.82e$-$26$ \\

thermal2          & $5.017s$     & $2.587s$      & $1.94$  & $21$     & $8.25e$-$14$ & $4.34e$-$18$ \\ \hline \hline

cage13            & $9.315s$     & $3.227s$      & $2.89$  & $26$     & $3.38e$-$13$ & $2.08e$-$16$ \\

crashbasis        & $35.980s$    & $14.770s$     & $2.43$  & $127$    & $1.17e$-$12$ & $1.56e$-$17$ \\

FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $24.611s$    & $7.749s$      & $3.17$  & $64$     & $3.87e$-$11$ & $2.84e$-$14$ \\

language          & $16.859s$    & $9.697s$      & $1.74$  & $89$     & $2.17e$-$12$ & $1.70e$-$12$ \\

poli\_large       & $10.200s$    & $6.534s$      & $1.56$  & $69$     & $5.14e$-$13$ & $1.63e$-$13$ \\

torso3            & $49.074s$    & $19.397s$     & $2.53$  & $175$    & $2.69e$-$12$ & $2.77e$-$16$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of parallel GMRES solver for solving linear systems associated to sparse five-bands matrices
on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. on a cluster of 12 GPUs}
\label{tab:09}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Tables~\ref{tab:08} and~\ref{tab:09} shows the performaces of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers, respectively, obtained on
a cluster of $24$ CPU cores and on a cluster of $12$ GPUs. The linear systems solved in these tables are associated to the
sparse five-bands matrices presented on Table~\ref{tab:07}. We can notice from both Tables~\ref{tab:08} and~\ref{tab:09} that 
using a GPU cluster is not efficient for solving these kind of sparse linear systems. We can see that the execution times obtained
on the GPU cluster are almost equivalent to those obtained on the CPU cluster (see the relative gains presented in column~$4$
of each table). This is due to the large number of communications necessary to synchronize the computations over the cluster.
Indeed, the naive partitioning, row-by-row or column-by-column, of sparse matrices having large bandwidths can link a computing
node to many neighbors and then generate a large number of data dependencies between these computing nodes in the cluster. 

Therefore, we have chosen to use a hypergraph partitioning method, which is well-suited to numerous kinds of sparse matrices~\cite{ref11}.
Indeed, it can well model the communications between the computing nodes, particularly in the case of nonsymmetric and irregular
matrices, and it gives good reduction of the total communication volume. In contrast, it is an expensive operation in terms of 
execution time and memory space. 

The sparse matrix $A$ of the linear system to be solved is modeled as a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ as
follows:
\begin{itemize*}
\item each matrix row $\{i\}_{0\leq i<n}$ corresponds to a vertex $v_i\in\mathcal{V}$ and,
\item each matrix column $\{j\}_{0\leq j<n}$ corresponds to a hyperedge $e_j\in\mathcal{E}$, where:
\begin{equation}
\forall a_{ij} \neq 0 \mbox{~is a nonzero value of matrix~} A \mbox{~:~} v_i \in pins[e_j],
\end{equation} 
\item $w_i$ is the weight of vertex $v_i$ and,
\item $c_j$ is the cost of hyperedge $e_j$.
\end{itemize*}
A $K$-way partitioning of a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ is defined as $\mathcal{P}=\{\mathcal{V}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{V}_K\}$
a set of pairwise disjoint non-empty subsets (or parts) of the vertex set $\mathcal{V}$, so that each subset is attributed to a computing node.
Figure~\ref{fig:08} shows an example of the hypergraph model of a  $(9\times 9)$ sparse matrix in three parts. The circles and squares correspond,
respectively, to the vertices and hyperedges of the hypergraph. The solid squares define the cut hyperedges connecting at least two different parts. 
The connectivity $\lambda_j$ of a cut hyperedge $e_j$ denotes the number of different parts spanned by $e_j$.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/hypergraph}}
\caption{An example of the hypergraph partitioning of a sparse matrix decomposed between three computing nodes.}
\label{fig:08}
\end{figure}

The cut hyperedges model the total communication volume between the different computing nodes in the cluster, necessary to perform the parallel SpMV
multiplication. Indeed, each hyperedge $e_j$ defines a set of atomic computations $b_i\leftarrow b_i+a_{ij}x_j$, $0\leq i,j<n$, of the SpMV multiplication
$Ax=b$ that need the $j^{th}$ unknown value of solution vector $x$. Therefore, pins of hyperedge $e_j$, $pins[e_j]$, are the set of matrix rows sharing
and requiring the same unknown value $x_j$. For example in Figure~\ref{fig:08}, hyperedge $e_9$ whose pins are: $pins[e_9]=\{v_2,v_5,v_9\}$ represents the
dependency of matrix rows $2$, $5$ and $9$ to unknown $x_9$ needed to perform in parallel the atomic operations: $b_2\leftarrow b_2+a_{29}x_9$,
$b_5\leftarrow b_5+a_{59}x_9$ and $b_9\leftarrow b_9+a_{99}x_9$. However, unknown $x_9$ is the third entry of the sub-solution vector $x$ of part (or node) $3$.
So the computing node $3$ must exchange this value with nodes $1$ and $2$, which leads to perform two communications.

The hypergraph partitioning allows to reduce the total communication volume required to perform the parallel SpMV multiplication, while maintaining the 
load balancing between the computing nodes. In fact, it allows to minimize at best the following amount:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{P})=\sum_{e_{j}\in\mathcal{E}_{C}}c_{j}(\lambda_{j}-1),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}_{C}$ denotes the set of the cut hyperedges coming from the hypergraph partitioning $\mathcal{P}$ and $c_j$ and $\lambda_j$ are, respectively,
the cost and the connectivity of cut hyperedge $e_j$. Moreover, it also ensures the load balancing between the $K$ parts as follows: 
\begin{equation}
  W_{k}\leq (1+\epsilon)W_{avg}, \hspace{0.2cm} (1\leq k\leq K) \hspace{0.2cm} \text{and} \hspace{0.2cm} (0<\epsilon<1),
\end{equation} 
where $W_{k}$ is the sum of all vertex weights ($w_{i}$) in part $\mathcal{V}_{k}$, $W_{avg}$ is the average weight of all $K$ parts and $\epsilon$ is the 
maximum allowed imbalanced ratio.

The hypergraph partitioning is a NP-complete problem but software tools using heuristics are developed, for example: hMETIS~\cite{ref12}, PaToH~\cite{ref13}
and Zoltan~\cite{ref14}. Since our objective is solving large sparse linear systems, we use the parallel hypergraph partitioning which must be performed by
at least two MPI processes. It allows us to accelerate the data partitioning of large sparse matrices. For this, the hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$ must be partitioned
in $p$ (number of MPI processes) sub-hypergraphs $\mathcal{H}_k=(\mathcal{V}_k,\mathcal{E}_k)$, $0\leq k<p$, and then we performed the parallel hypergraph
partitioning method using some functions of the MPI library between the $p$ processes.

Tables~\ref{tab:10} and~\ref{tab:11} shows the performances of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers, respectively, using the hypergraph partitioning for solving
large linear systems associated to the sparse five-bands matrices presented in Table~\ref{tab:07}. For these experimental tests, we have applied the parallel
hypergraph partitioning~\cite{ref15} developed in Zoltan tool~\ref{ref14}. We have initialized the parameters of the partitioning as follows:
\begin{itemize*}
\item the weight $w_{i}$ of each vertex $v_{j}\in\mathcal{V}$ is set to the number of nonzero values on matrix row $i$,
\item for the sake of simplicity, the cost $c_{j}$ of each hyperedge $e_{j}\in\mathcal{E}$ is fixed to $1$,
\item the maximum imbalanced load ratio $\epsilon$ is limited to $10\%$.\\
\end{itemize*}  

\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}    & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{Gains \%}$ \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere  & $5.935s$             & $1.213s$              & $4.89$          & $63.66\%$ \\

ecology2        & $1.093s$             & $0.136s$              & $8.00$          & $89.55\%$ \\

finan512        & $1.762s$             & $0.475s$              & $3.71$          & $63.43\%$ \\

G3\_circuit     & $2.095s$             & $0.558s$              & $3.76$          & $73.79\%$ \\

shallow\_water2 & $0.498s$             & $0.068s$              & $7.31$          & $86.51\%$ \\

thermal2        & $1.889s$             & $0.348s$              & $5.43$          & $79.59\%$ \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel CG solver using hypergraph partitioning for solving linear systems associated to
sparse five-bands matrices on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. on a cluster of 12 GPU.}
\label{tab:10}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
{\bf Matrix}      & $\mathbf{Time_{cpu}}$ & $\mathbf{Time_{gpu}}$ & $\mathbf{\tau}$ & $\mathbf{Gains \%}$ \\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere    & $16.430s$            & $2.840s$              & $5.78$          & $60.83\%$ \\

ecology2          & $3.152s$             & $0.367s$              & $8.59$          & $83.13\%$ \\

finan512          & $3.672s$             & $0.723s$              & $5.08$          & $62.62\%$ \\

G3\_circuit       & $4.468s$             & $0.971s$              & $4.60$          & $65.46\%$ \\

shallow\_water2   & $2.647s$             & $0.312s$              & $8.48$          & $79.73\%$ \\

thermal2          & $4.190s$             & $0.666s$              & $6.29$          & $74.25\%$ \\ \hline \hline

cage13            & $8.077s$             & $1.584s$              & $5.10$          & $50.91\%$ \\

crashbasis        & $35.173s$            & $5.546s$              & $6.34$          & $62.43\%$ \\

FEM\_3D\_thermal2 & $24.825s$            & $3.113s$              & $7.97$          & $59.83\%$ \\

language          & $16.706s$            & $2.522s$              & $6.62$          & $73.99\%$ \\

poli\_large       & $12.715s$            & $3.989s$              & $3.19$          & $38.95\%$ \\

torso3            & $48.459s$            & $6.234s$              & $7.77$          & $67.86\%$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performances of the parallel GMRES solver using hypergraph partitioning for solving linear systems associated to
sparse five-bands matrices on a cluster of 24 CPU cores vs. on a cluster of 12 GPU.}
\label{tab:11}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We can notice from both Tables~\ref{tab:10} and~\ref{tab:11} that the hypergraph partitioning has improved the performances of both
parallel CG and GMRES algorithms for solving large linear systems associated to matrices having large bandwidths. The execution times
on the GPU cluster of both parallel solvers are significantly improved compared to those obtained by using the partitioning row-by-row.
For these examples of sparse matrices, the execution times of CG and GMRES solvers are reduced on average about $76\%$ and $65\%$ respectively
(see column~$5$ of each table) compared to those obtained in Tables~\ref{tab:08} and~\ref{tab:09}.

In fact, the hypergraph partitioning applied to sparse matrices having large bandwidths allows to reduce the total communication volume
necessary to synchronize the computations between the computing nodes in the GPU cluster. Table~\ref{tab:12} presents, for each sparse
matrix, the total communication volume between $12$ GPU computing nodes obtained by using the partitioning row-by-row (column~$2$), the
total communication volume obtained by using the hypergraph partitioning (column~$3$) and the execution times in minutes of the hypergraph
partitioning operation performed by $12$ MPI processes (column~$4$). The total communication volume defines the total number of the vector
elements exchanged by the computing nodes. Then, Table~\ref{tab:12} shows that the hypergraph partitioning method can split the sparse 
matrix so as to minimize the data dependencies between the computing nodes and thus to reduce the total communication volume.


\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} 
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\bf Matrix}  & {\bf Total comms.}      & {\bf Total comms.}      & {\bf Execution} \\
                             & {\bf volume without}    & {\bf volume with}       & {\bf trime}  \\
                             & {\bf hypergraph}        & {\bf hypergraph }       & {\bf of the parti.}  \\  
                             & {\bf parti.}            & {\bf parti.}            & {\bf in minutes}\\ \hline \hline

2cubes\_sphere               & $25,360,543$            & $240,679$               & $68.98$         \\

ecology2                     & $26,044,002$            & $73,021$                & $4.92$          \\

finan512                     & $26,087,431$            & $900,729$               & $33.72$         \\

G3\_circuit                  & $31,912,003$            & $5,366,774$             & $11.63$         \\ 

shallow\_water2              & $25,105,108$            & $60,899$                & $5.06$          \\ 

thermal2                     & $30,012,846$            & $1,077,921$             & $17.88$         \\ \hline \hline

cage13                       & $28,254,282$            & $3,845,440$             & $196.45$        \\

crashbasis                   & $29,020,060$            & $2,401,876$             & $33.39$         \\

FEM\_3D\_thermal2            & $25,263,767$            & $250,105$               & $49.89$         \\

language                     & $27,291,486$            & $1,537,835$             & $9.07$          \\

poli\_large                  & $25,053,554$            & $7,388,883$             & $5.92$          \\

torso3                       & $25,682,514$            & $613,250$               & $61.51$         \\ \hline       
\end{tabular}
\caption{The total communication volume between 12 GPU computing nodes without and with the hypergraph partitioning method.}
\label{tab:12}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Nevertheless, as we can see from the fourth column of Table~\ref{tab:12}, the hypergraph partitioning takes longer compared
to the execution times of the resolutions. As previously mentioned, the hypergraph partitioning method is less efficient in
terms of memory consumption and partitioning time than its graph counterpart, but the hypergraph well models the nonsymmetric
and irregular problems. So for the applications which often use the same sparse matrices, we can perform the hypergraph partitioning
on these matrices only once for each and then, we save the traces of these partitionings in files to be reused several times.
Therefore, this allows us to avoid the partitioning of the sparse matrices at each resolution of the linear systems.

However, the most important performance parameter is the scalability of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers on a GPU cluster.
Particularly, we have taken into account the weak-scaling of both parallel algorithms on a cluster of one to 12 GPU computing
nodes. We have performed a set of experimental tests on both matrix structures: band matrices and five-bands matrices. The
sparse matrices of tests are generated from the symmetric sparse matrix {\it thermal2} chosen from the Davis's collection.
Figures~\ref{fig:09}-$(a)$ and~\ref{fig:09}-$(b)$ show the execution times of both parallel methods for solving large linear
systems associated to band matrices and those associated to five-bands matrices, respectively. The size of a sparse sub-matrix
per computing node, for each matrix structure, is fixed as follows:
\begin{itemize*}
\item band matrix: $15$ million of rows and $105,166,557$ of nonzero values,
\item five-bands matrix: $5$ million of rows and $78,714,492$ of nonzero values. 
\end{itemize*}
We can see from these figures that both parallel solvers are quite scalable on a GPU cluster. Indeed, the execution times remains
almost constant while the size of the size of the sparse linear systems to be solved increases proportionally with the number of 
the GPU computing nodes. This means that the communication cost is relatively constant regardless of the number the computing nodes
in the GPU cluster.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/scale_band} \\
\small{(a) Sparse band matrices} \\
\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Chapters/chapter12/figures/scale_5band} \\
\small{(b) Sparse five-bands matrices}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Weak-scaling of the parallel CG and GMRES solvers on a GPU cluster for solving large sparse linear systems.}
\label{fig:09}
\end{figure}

%%--------------------------%%
%%       SECTION 6          %%
%%--------------------------%%
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:06}
In this chapter, we have aimed at harnessing the computing power of a cluster of GPUs for solving large sparse linear systems.
For this, we have used two Krylov sub-space iterative methods: the CG and GMRES methods. The first method is well-known to its
efficiency for solving symmetric linear systems and the second one is used, particularly, for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. 

We have presentend the parallel implementation of both iterative methods on a GPU cluster. Particularly, the operations dealing with
the vectors and/or matrices, of these methods, are parallelized between the different GPU computing nodes of the cluster. Indeed,
the data-parallel vector operations are accelerated by GPUs and the communications required to synchronize the parallel computations
are carried out by CPU cores. For this, we have used a heterogeneous CUDA/MPI programming to implement the parallel iterative
algorithms.

In the experimental tests, we have shown that using a GPU cluster is efficient for solving linear systems associated to very large
sparse matrices. The experimental results, obtained in the present chapter, showed that a cluster of $12$ GPUs is about $7$
times faster than a cluster of $24$ CPU cores for solving large sparse linear systems of $25$ million unknown values. This is due
to the GPU ability to compute the data-parallel operations faster than the CPUs. However, we have shown that solving linear systems
associated to matrices having large bandwidths uses many communications to synchronize the computations of GPUs, which slow down 
even more the resolution. Moreover, there two kinds of communications: between a CPU and its GPU and between CPUs of the computing
nodes, such that the first ones are the slowest communications on a GPU cluster. So, we have proposed to use the hypergraph partitioning
instead of the row-by-row partitioning. This allows to minimize the data dependencies between the GPU computing nodes and thus to
reduce the total communication volume. The experimental results showed that using the hypergraph partitioning technique improve the
execution times on average of $76\%$ to the CG method and of $65\%$ to the GMRES method on a cluster of $12$ GPUs. 

In the recent GPU hardware and software architectures, the GPU-Direct system with CUDA version 5.0 is used so that two GPUs located on
the same node or on distant nodes can communicate between them directly without CPUs. This allows to improve the data transfers between
GPUs.          

\putbib[Chapters/chapter12/biblio12]