paper, we show that it is interesting to use SimGrid to simulate the behaviors
of asynchronous iterative algorithms. For that, we compare the behaviour of a
synchronous GMRES algorithm with an asynchronous multisplitting one with
-simulations in which we choose some parameters. Both codes are real MPI
-codes. Simulations allow us to see when the multisplitting algorithm can be more
+simulations which let us easily choose some parameters. Both codes are real MPI
+codes and simulations allow us to see when the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm can be more
efficient than the GMRES one to solve a 3D Poisson problem.
$X_{0}$ to find an approximate value $X^*$ of the solution with a very low residual error. Several well-known methods
demonstrate the convergence of these algorithms~\cite{BT89,Bahi07}.
-Parallelization of such algorithms generally involve the division of the problem
+Parallelization of such algorithms generally involves the division of the problem
into several \emph{blocks} that will be solved in parallel on multiple
processing units. The latter will communicate each intermediate results before a
new iteration starts and until the approximate solution is reached. These
To our knowledge, there is no existing work on the large-scale simulation of a
real asynchronous iterative application. {\bf The contribution of the present
- paper can be summarised in two main points}. First we give a first approach
+ paper can be summarized in two main points}. First we give a first approach
of the simulation of asynchronous iterative algorithms using a simulation tool
(i.e. the SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}). Second, we confirm the
effectiveness of the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm by comparing its
-performance with the synchronous GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual)
+performance with the synchronous GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual) method
\cite{ref1}. Both these codes can be used to solve large linear systems. In
this paper, we focus on a 3D Poisson problem. We show, that with minor
modifications of the initial MPI code, the SimGrid toolkit allows us to perform
convergence depends on the delay of messages. With synchronous iterations, the
number of iterations is exactly the same than in the sequential mode (if the
parallelization process does not change the algorithm). So the difficulty with
-asynchronous iteratie algorithms comes from the fact it is necessary to run the algorithm
+asynchronous iterative algorithms comes from the fact it is necessary to run the algorithm
with real data. In fact, from an execution to another the order of messages will
change and the number of iterations to reach the convergence will also change.
According to all the parameters of the platform (number of nodes, power of
-nodes, inter and intra clusrters bandwith and latency, ....) and of the
-algorithm (number of splitting with the multisplitting algorithm), the
-multisplitting code will obtain the solution more or less quickly. Or course,
+nodes, inter and intra clusrters bandwith and latency, etc.) and of the
+algorithm (number of splittings with the multisplitting algorithm), the
+multisplitting code will obtain the solution more or less quickly. Of course,
the GMRES method also depends of the same parameters. As it is difficult to have
access to many clusters, grids or supercomputers with many different network
parameters, it is interesting to be able to simulate the behaviors of
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
- \includegraphics[width=60mm,keepaspectratio]{clustering}
-\caption{Example of three clusters of processors interconnected by a virtual unidirectional ring network.}
+ \includegraphics[width=60mm,keepaspectratio]{clustering2}
+\caption{Example of two distant clusters of processors.}
\label{fig:4.1}
\end{figure}
all clusters are interconnected by a virtual unidirectional ring network (see
Figure~\ref{fig:4.1}). During the resolution, a Boolean token circulates around
the virtual ring from a master processor to another until the global convergence
-is achieved. So starting from the cluster with rank 1, each master processor $i$
+is achieved. So starting from the cluster with rank 1, each master processor $\ell$
sets the token to \textit{True} if the local convergence is achieved or to
-\textit{False} otherwise, and sends it to master processor $i+1$. Finally, the
+\textit{False} otherwise, and sends it to master processor $\ell+1$. Finally, the
global convergence is detected when the master of cluster 1 receives from the
master of cluster $L$ a token set to \textit{True}. In this case, the master of
cluster 1 broadcasts a stop message to masters of other clusters. In this work,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We did not encounter major blocking problems when adapting the multisplitting algorithm previously described to a simulation environment like SimGrid unless some code
-debugging. Indeed, apart from the review of the program sequence for asynchronous exchanges between processors within a cluster or between clusters, the algorithm was executed successfully with SMPI and provided identical outputs as those obtained with direct execution under MPI. In synchronous
-mode, the execution of the program raised no particular issue but in asynchronous mode, the review of the sequence of MPI\_Isend, MPI\_Irecv and MPI\_Waitall instructions
-and with the addition of the primitive MPI\_Test was needed to avoid a memory fault due to an infinite loop resulting from the non-convergence of the algorithm.
+debugging. Indeed, apart from the review of the program sequence for asynchronous exchanges between processors within a cluster or between clusters, the algorithm was executed successfully with SMPI and provided identical outputs as those obtained with direct execution under MPI. For the synchronous GMRES method, the execution of the program raised no particular issue but in the asynchronous multisplitting method , the review of the sequence of \texttt{MPI\_Isend, MPI\_Irecv} and \texttt{MPI\_Waitall} instructions
+and with the addition of the primitive \texttt{MPI\_Test} was needed to avoid a memory fault due to an infinite loop resulting from the non-convergence of the algorithm.
%\CER{On voulait en fait montrer la simplicité de l'adaptation de l'algo a SimGrid. Les problèmes rencontrés décrits dans ce paragraphe concerne surtout le mode async}\LZK{OK. J'aurais préféré avoir un peu plus de détails sur l'adaptation de la version async}
%\CER{Le problème majeur sur l'adaptation MPI vers SMPI pour la partie asynchrone de l'algorithme a été le plantage en SMPI de Waitall après un Isend et Irecv. J'avais proposé un workaround en utilisant un MPI\_wait séparé pour chaque échange a la place d'un waitall unique pour TOUTES les échanges, une instruction qui semble bien fonctionner en MPI. Ce workaround aussi fonctionne bien. Mais après, tu as modifié le programme avec l'ajout d'un MPI\_Test, au niveau de la routine de détection de la convergence et du coup, l'échange global avec waitall a aussi fonctionné.}
Note here that the use of SMPI functions optimizer for memory footprint and CPU usage is not recommended knowing that one wants to get real results by simulation.
%Second, some compilation errors on MPI\_Waitall and MPI\_Finalize primitives have been fixed with the latest version of SimGrid.
%\AG{compilation or run-time error?}
In total, the initial MPI program running on the simulation environment SMPI gave after a very simple adaptation the same results as those obtained in a real
-environment. We have successfully executed the code in synchronous mode using parallel GMRES algorithm compared with our multisplitting algorithm in asynchronous mode after few modifications.
+environment. We have successfully executed the code for the synchronous GMRES algorithm compared with our asynchronous multisplitting algorithm after few modifications.
\item Hosts processors power (GFlops) can also influence on the results.
\item Finally, when submitting job batches for execution, the arguments values
passed to the program like the maximum number of iterations or the precision are critical. They allow us to ensure not only the convergence of the
- algorithm but also to get the main objective in getting an execution time in asynchronous communication less than in
- synchronous mode. The ratio between the simulated execution time of synchronous GMRES algorithm
- compared to the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm ($t_\text{GMRES} / t_\text{Multisplitting}$) is defined as the \emph{relative gain}. So,
- our objective running the algorithm in SimGrid is to obtain a relative gain
- greater than 1.
-\end{itemize}
+ algorithm but also to get the main objective in getting an execution time with the asynchronous multisplitting less than with synchronous GMRES.
+ \end{itemize}
+The ratio between the simulated execution time of synchronous GMRES algorithm
+compared to the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm ($t_\text{GMRES} / t_\text{Multisplitting}$) is defined as the \emph{relative gain}. So,
+our objective running the algorithm in SimGrid is to obtain a relative gain greater than 1.
A priori, obtaining a relative gain greater than 1 would be difficult in a local
-area network configuration where the synchronous mode will take advantage on the
+area network configuration where the synchronous GMRES method will take advantage on the
rapid exchange of information on such high-speed links. Thus, the methodology
adopted was to launch the application on a clustered network. In this
configuration, degrading the inter-cluster network performance will penalize the
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
- \caption{2 clusters, each with 50 nodes}
+ \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared to GMRES for
+ different configurations with 2 clusters, each one composed of 50 nodes.}
\label{tab.cluster.2x50}
\begin{mytable}{5}
& 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 \\
\hline
latency (ms)
- & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\
+ & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\
\hline
power (GFlops)
& 1 & 1 & 1 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
& 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 50 \\ % & 10 & 10 \\
\hline
latency (ms)
- & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.02 \\ % & 0.03 & 0.01 \\
+ & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 \\ % & 0.03 & 0.01 \\
\hline
Power (GFlops)
& 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\ % & 1 & 1.5 \\
\end{mytable}
\end{table}
+\RC{Du coup la latence est toujours la même, pourquoi la mettre dans la table?}
+
%Then we have changed the network configuration using three clusters containing
%respectively 33, 33 and 34 hosts, or again by on hundred hosts for all the
%clusters. In the same way as above, a judicious choice of key parameters has
%permitted to get the results in Table~\ref{tab.cluster.3x33} which shows the
%relative gains greater than 1 with a matrix size from 62 to 100 elements.
-\CER{En accord avec RC, on a pour le moment enlevé les tableaux 2 et 3 sachant que les résultats obtenus sont limites. De même, on a enlevé aussi les deux dernières colonnes du tableau I en attendant une meilleure performance et une meilleure precision}
+%\CER{En accord avec RC, on a pour le moment enlevé les tableaux 2 et 3 sachant que les résultats obtenus sont limites. De même, on a enlevé aussi les deux dernières colonnes du tableau I en attendant une meilleure performance et une meilleure precision}
%\begin{table}[!t]
% \centering
% \caption{3 clusters, each with 33 nodes}
\item PLATFORM: XML file description of the platform architecture whith the following characteristics: %two clusters (cluster1 and cluster2) with the following characteristics :
\begin{itemize}
\item 2 clusters of 50 hosts each;
- \item Processor unit power: \np[GFlops]{1.5};
- \item Intracluster network bandwidth: \np[Gbit/s]{1.25} and latency:
- \np[$\mu$s]{0.05};
- \item Intercluster network bandwidth: \np[Mbit/s]{5} and latency:
- \np[$\mu$s]{5};
+ \item Processor unit power: \np[GFlops]{1} or \np[GFlops]{1.5};
+ \item Intra-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Gbit/s]{1.25} and latency: \np[$\mu$s]{50};
+ \item Inter-cluster network bandwidth: \np[Mbit/s]{5} or \np[Mbit/s]{50} and latency: \np[ms]{20};
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
After analyzing the outputs, generally, for the two clusters including one hundred hosts configuration (Tables~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50}), some combinations of parameters affecting
the results have given a relative gain more than 2.5, showing the effectiveness of the
-asynchronous performance compared to the synchronous mode.
+asynchronous multisplitting compared to GMRES with two distant clusters.
With these settings, Table~\ref{tab.cluster.2x50} shows
-that after a deterioration of inter cluster network with a bandwidth of \np[Mbit/s]{5} and a latency in order of one hundredth of millisecond and a processor power
+that after setting the bandwidth of the inter cluster network to \np[Mbit/s]{5} and a latency in order of one hundredth of millisecond and a processor power
of one GFlops, an efficiency of about \np[\%]{40} is
obtained in asynchronous mode for a matrix size of 62 elements. It is noticed that the result remains
stable even we vary the residual error precision from \np{E-5} to \np{E-9}. By
%\LZK{Ma question est: le bandwidth et latency sont ceux inter-clusters ou pour les deux inter et intra cluster??}
%\CER{Définitivement, les paramètres réseaux variables ici se rapportent au réseau INTER cluster.}
\section{Conclusion}
-The experimental results on executing a parallel iterative algorithm in
-asynchronous mode on an environment simulating a large scale of virtual
-computers organized with interconnected clusters have been presented.
-Our work has demonstrated that using such a simulation tool allow us to
-reach the following three objectives:
+The simulation of the execution of parallel asynchronous iterative algorithms on large scale clusters has been presented.
+In this work, we show that SIMGRID is an efficient simulation tool that allows us to
+reach the following two objectives:
\begin{enumerate}
-\item To have a flexible configurable execution platform resolving the
-hard exercise to access to very limited but so solicited physical
-resources;
-\item to ensure the algorithm convergence with a reasonable time and
-iteration number ;
-\item and finally and more importantly, to find the correct combination
-of the cluster and network specifications permitting to save time in
-executing the algorithm in asynchronous mode.
+\item To have a flexible configurable execution platform that allows us to
+ simulate algorithms for which execution of all parts of
+ the code is necessary. Using simulations before real executions is a nice
+ solution to detect potential scalability problems.
+
+\item To test the combination of the cluster and network specifications permitting to execute an asynchronous algorithm faster than a synchronous one.
\end{enumerate}
-Our results have shown that in certain conditions, asynchronous mode is
-speeder up to \np[\%]{40} than executing the algorithm in synchronous mode
+Our results have shown that with two distant clusters, the asynchronous multisplitting is faster to \np[\%]{40} compared to the synchronous GMRES method
which is not negligible for solving complex practical problems with more
and more increasing size.
- Several studies have already addressed the performance execution time of
+Several studies have already addressed the performance execution time of
this class of algorithm. The work presented in this paper has
demonstrated an original solution to optimize the use of a simulation
tool to run efficiently an iterative parallel algorithm in asynchronous
mode in a grid architecture.
-\LZK{Perspectives???}
+In future works, we plan to extend our experimentations to larger scale platforms by increasing the number of computing cores and the number of clusters.
+We will also have to increase the size of the input problem which will require the use of a more powerful simulation platform. At last, we expect to compare our simulation results to real execution results on real architectures in order to experimentally validate our study.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is partially funded by the Labex ACTION program (contract ANR-11-LABX-01-01).
-\todo[inline]{The authors would like to thank\dots{}}
+%\todo[inline]{The authors would like to thank\dots{}}
% trigger a \newpage just before the given reference
% number - used to balance the columns on the last page
