correct

[kahina_paper1.git] / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 43bbf1e887b8de02804ffa041ca2ba26c8c13005..8506d8553dc0f2327718d401a98660e5b806b216 100644 (file)
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Aberth~\cite{Aberth73} uses a different iteration formula given as:
 where $P'(z)$ is the polynomial derivative of $P$ evaluated in the
 point $z$.
 
 where $P'(z)$ is the polynomial derivative of $P$ evaluated in the
 point $z$.
 

-Aberth, Ehrlich and Farmer-Loizou~\cite{Loizon83} have proved that
+Aberth, Ehrlich and Farmer-Loizou~\cite{Loizou83} have proved that

 the Ehrlich-Aberth method (EA) has a cubic order of convergence for simple roots whereas the Durand-Kerner has a quadratic order of convergence.
 
 
 the Ehrlich-Aberth method (EA) has a cubic order of convergence for simple roots whereas the Durand-Kerner has a quadratic order of convergence.
 
 


@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ time.
 Many authors have dealt with the parallelization of
 simultaneous methods, i.e. that find all the zeros simultaneously. 
 Freeman~\cite{Freeman89} implemented and compared DK, EA and another method of the fourth order proposed
 Many authors have dealt with the parallelization of
 simultaneous methods, i.e. that find all the zeros simultaneously. 
 Freeman~\cite{Freeman89} implemented and compared DK, EA and another method of the fourth order proposed

-by Farmer and Loizou~\cite{Loizon83}, on a 8-processor linear
+by Farmer and Loizou~\cite{Loizou83}, on a 8-processor linear

 chain, for polynomials of degree up to 8. The third method often
 diverges, but the first two methods have speed-up equal to 5.5. Later,
 Freeman and Bane~\cite{Freemanall90}  considered asynchronous
 chain, for polynomials of degree up to 8. The third method often
 diverges, but the first two methods have speed-up equal to 5.5. Later,
 Freeman and Bane~\cite{Freemanall90}  considered asynchronous


@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ propose to use the logarithm and the exponential of a complex in order to comput
 \begin{align}
 \label{defexpcomplex}
  \forall(x,y)\in R^{*2}; \exp(x+i.y) & = \exp(x).\exp(i.y)\\
 \begin{align}
 \label{defexpcomplex}
  \forall(x,y)\in R^{*2}; \exp(x+i.y) & = \exp(x).\exp(i.y)\\

-                                     & =\exp(x).\cos(y)+i.\exp(x).\sin(y)\label{defexpcomplex}
+                                     & =\exp(x).\cos(y)+i.\exp(x).\sin(y)\label{defexpcomplex1}

 \end{align}
 %%\end{equation}
 
 \end{align}
 %%\end{equation}
 


@@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ in~\cite{Benall68,Jana06,Janall99,Riceall06}.
 
 There are many schemes for the simultaneous approximation of all roots of a given
 polynomial. Several works on different methods and issues of root
 
 There are many schemes for the simultaneous approximation of all roots of a given
 polynomial. Several works on different methods and issues of root

-finding have been reported in~\cite{Azad07, Gemignani07, Kalantari08, Skachek08, Zhancall08, Zhuall08}. However, Durand-Kerner and Ehrlich-Aberth methods are the most practical choices among
+finding have been reported in~\cite{Azad07, Gemignani07, Kalantari08, Zhancall08, Zhuall08}. However, Durand-Kerner and Ehrlich-Aberth methods are the most practical choices among

 them~\cite{Bini04}. These two methods have been extensively
 studied for parallelization due to their intrinsics parallelism, i.e. the
 computations involved in both methods has some inherent
 them~\cite{Bini04}. These two methods have been extensively
 studied for parallelization due to their intrinsics parallelism, i.e. the
 computations involved in both methods has some inherent


@@ -489,14 +489,14 @@ provides two read-only memory spaces, the constant space and the
 texture space, which reside in external DRAM, and are accessed via
 read-only caches.
 
 texture space, which reside in external DRAM, and are accessed via
 read-only caches.
 

-\section{ The implementation of Ehrlich-Aberth method on GPU}
+\section{ Implementation of Ehrlich-Aberth method on GPU}

 \label{sec5}
 %%\subsection{A CUDA implementation of the Aberth's method }
 %%\subsection{A GPU implementation of the Aberth's method }
 
 
 
 \label{sec5}
 %%\subsection{A CUDA implementation of the Aberth's method }
 %%\subsection{A GPU implementation of the Aberth's method }
 
 
 

-\subsection{A sequential Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm}
+\subsection{Sequential Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm}

 The main steps of Ehrlich-Aberth method are shown in Algorithm.~\ref{alg1-seq} :
 %\LinesNumbered  
 \begin{algorithm}[H]
 The main steps of Ehrlich-Aberth method are shown in Algorithm.~\ref{alg1-seq} :
 %\LinesNumbered  
 \begin{algorithm}[H]


@@ -504,8 +504,10 @@ The main steps of Ehrlich-Aberth method are shown in Algorithm.~\ref{alg1-seq} :
 
 \caption{A sequential algorithm to find roots with the Ehrlich-Aberth method}
 
 
 \caption{A sequential algorithm to find roots with the Ehrlich-Aberth method}
 

-\KwIn{$Z^{0}$(Initial root's vector),$\varepsilon$ (error tolerance threshold), P(Polynomial to solve),$\Delta z_{max}$ (maximum value of stop condition),k (number of iteration),n(Polynomial's degrees)}
-\KwOut {Z (The solution root's vector),ZPrec (the previous solution root's vector)}
+\KwIn{$Z^{0}$ (Initial root's vector), $\varepsilon$ (error tolerance
+  threshold), P (Polynomial to solve), $\Delta z_{max}$ (maximum value
+  of stop condition), k (number of iteration), n (Polynomial's degrees)}
+\KwOut {Z (The solution root's vector), ZPrec (the previous solution root's vector)}

 
 \BlankLine
 
 
 \BlankLine
 


@@ -546,13 +548,15 @@ With the Gauss-Seidel iteration, we have:
 EAGS: z^{k+1}_{i}=\frac{p(z^{k}_{i})}{p'(z^{k}_{i})-p(z^{k}_{i})(\sum^{i-1}_{j=1}\frac{1}{z^{k}_{i}-z^{k+1}_{j}}+\sum^{n}_{j=i+1}\frac{1}{z^{k}_{i}-z^{k}_{j}})}, i=1,...,n.
 \end{equation}
 %%Here a finiched my revision %%
 EAGS: z^{k+1}_{i}=\frac{p(z^{k}_{i})}{p'(z^{k}_{i})-p(z^{k}_{i})(\sum^{i-1}_{j=1}\frac{1}{z^{k}_{i}-z^{k+1}_{j}}+\sum^{n}_{j=i+1}\frac{1}{z^{k}_{i}-z^{k}_{j}})}, i=1,...,n.
 \end{equation}
 %%Here a finiched my revision %%

-Using Equation.~\ref{eq:Aberth-H-GS} to update the vector solution \textit{Z}, we expect the Gauss-Seidel iteration to converge more quickly because, just as its ancestor (for solving linear systems of equations), it uses the most fresh computed roots $z^{k+1}_{i}$.
+Using Equation.~\ref{eq:Aberth-H-GS} to update the vector solution
+\textit{Z}, we expect the Gauss-Seidel iteration to converge more
+quickly because, just as any Jacobi algorithm (for solving linear systems of equations), it uses the most fresh computed roots $z^{k+1}_{i}$.

 
 The $4^{th}$ step of the algorithm checks the convergence condition using Equation.~\ref{eq:Aberth-Conv-Cond}.
 Both steps 3 and 4 use 1 thread to compute all the $n$ roots on CPU, which is very harmful for performance in case of the large degree polynomials.
 
 
 
 The $4^{th}$ step of the algorithm checks the convergence condition using Equation.~\ref{eq:Aberth-Conv-Cond}.
 Both steps 3 and 4 use 1 thread to compute all the $n$ roots on CPU, which is very harmful for performance in case of the large degree polynomials.
 
 

-\subsection{A Parallel implementation with CUDA }
+\subsection{Parallel implementation with CUDA }

 On the CPU,  both steps 3 and 4 contain the loop \verb=for= and a single thread executes all the instructions in the loop $n$ times. In this subsection, we explain how the GPU architecture can compute this loop and reduce the execution time.
 In the GPU, the schduler assigns the execution of this loop to a group of threads organised as a grid of blocks with block containing a number of threads. All threads within a block are executed concurrently in parallel. The instructions run on the GPU are grouped in special function called kernels. It's up to the programmer, to describe the execution context, that is the size of the Grid, the number of blocks and the number of threads per block upon the call of a given kernel, according to a special syntax defined by CUDA.
 
 On the CPU,  both steps 3 and 4 contain the loop \verb=for= and a single thread executes all the instructions in the loop $n$ times. In this subsection, we explain how the GPU architecture can compute this loop and reduce the execution time.
 In the GPU, the schduler assigns the execution of this loop to a group of threads organised as a grid of blocks with block containing a number of threads. All threads within a block are executed concurrently in parallel. The instructions run on the GPU are grouped in special function called kernels. It's up to the programmer, to describe the execution context, that is the size of the Grid, the number of blocks and the number of threads per block upon the call of a given kernel, according to a special syntax defined by CUDA.
 


@@ -651,12 +655,6 @@ All experimental results obtained from the simulations are made in double precis
 \subsection{The execution time in seconds of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on CPU OpenMP (1 core, 4 cores) vs. on a Tesla GPU}
 
 
 \subsection{The execution time in seconds of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on CPU OpenMP (1 core, 4 cores) vs. on a Tesla GPU}
 
 

-%\begin{figure}[H]
-%\centering
- % \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/Compar_EA_algorithm_CPU_GPU}
-%\caption{The execution time in seconds of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on CPU core vs. on a Tesla GPU}
-%\label{fig:01}
-%\end{figure}

 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering
 
 \begin{figure}[H]
 \centering


@@ -677,7 +675,7 @@ For that, we notice that the maximum number of threads per block for the Nvidia
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/influence_nb_threads}
 \caption{Influence of the number of threads on the execution times of different polynomials (sparse and full)}
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/influence_nb_threads}
 \caption{Influence of the number of threads on the execution times of different polynomials (sparse and full)}

-\label{fig:01}
+\label{fig:02}

 \end{figure}
 
 The figure 2 show that, the best execution time for both sparse and full polynomial are given when the threads number varies between 64 and 256 threads per bloc. We notice that with small polynomials the best number of threads per block is 64, Whereas, the large polynomials the best number of threads per block is 256. However,In the following experiments we specify that the number of thread by block is 256.
 \end{figure}
 
 The figure 2 show that, the best execution time for both sparse and full polynomial are given when the threads number varies between 64 and 256 threads per bloc. We notice that with small polynomials the best number of threads per block is 64, Whereas, the large polynomials the best number of threads per block is 256. However,In the following experiments we specify that the number of thread by block is 256.


@@ -689,7 +687,7 @@ In this experiment we report the performance of log.exp solution describe in ~\r
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/sparse_full_explog}
 \caption{The impact of exp-log solution to compute very high degrees of  polynomial.}
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/sparse_full_explog}
 \caption{The impact of exp-log solution to compute very high degrees of  polynomial.}

-\label{fig:01}
+\label{fig:03}

 \end{figure}
 
 The figure 3, show a comparison between the execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm applying exp.log solution and the execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm without applying exp.log solution, with full and sparse polynomials degrees. We can see that the execution time for the both algorithms are the same while the full polynomials degrees are less than 4000 and full polynomials are less than 150,000. After,we show clearly that the classical version of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm (without applying log.exp) stop to converge and can not solving any polynomial sparse or full. In counterpart, the new version of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm (applying log.exp solution) can solve very high and large full polynomial exceed 100,000 degrees.
 \end{figure}
 
 The figure 3, show a comparison between the execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm applying exp.log solution and the execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm without applying exp.log solution, with full and sparse polynomials degrees. We can see that the execution time for the both algorithms are the same while the full polynomials degrees are less than 4000 and full polynomials are less than 150,000. After,we show clearly that the classical version of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm (without applying log.exp) stop to converge and can not solving any polynomial sparse or full. In counterpart, the new version of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm (applying log.exp solution) can solve very high and large full polynomial exceed 100,000 degrees.


@@ -697,16 +695,7 @@ The figure 3, show a comparison between the execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth
 in fact, when the modulus of the roots are up than \textit{R} given in ~\ref{R},this exceed the limited number in the mantissa of floating points representations and can not compute the iterative function given in ~\ref{eq:Aberth-H-GS} to obtain the root solution, who justify the divergence of the classical Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm. However, applying log.exp solution given in ~\ref{sec2} took into account the limit of floating using the iterative function in(Eq.~\ref{Log_H1},Eq.~\ref{Log_H2} and allows to solve a very large polynomials degrees . 
 
 
 in fact, when the modulus of the roots are up than \textit{R} given in ~\ref{R},this exceed the limited number in the mantissa of floating points representations and can not compute the iterative function given in ~\ref{eq:Aberth-H-GS} to obtain the root solution, who justify the divergence of the classical Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm. However, applying log.exp solution given in ~\ref{sec2} took into account the limit of floating using the iterative function in(Eq.~\ref{Log_H1},Eq.~\ref{Log_H2} and allows to solve a very large polynomials degrees . 
 
 

-%\begin{figure}[H]
-\%centering
-  %\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/log_exp_Sparse}
-%\caption{The impact of exp-log solution to compute very high degrees of  polynomial.}
-%\label{fig:01}
-%\end{figure}
-
-%we report the performances of the exp.log for the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm for solving very high degree of polynomial. 

 
 

- 

 \subsection{A comparative study between Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm and Durand-kerner algorithm}
 In this part, we are interesting to compare the simultaneous methods, Ehrlich-Aberth and Durand-Kerner in parallel computer using GPU. We took into account the execution time, the number of iteration and the polynomial's size. for the both sparse and full polynomials.  
 
 \subsection{A comparative study between Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm and Durand-kerner algorithm}
 In this part, we are interesting to compare the simultaneous methods, Ehrlich-Aberth and Durand-Kerner in parallel computer using GPU. We took into account the execution time, the number of iteration and the polynomial's size. for the both sparse and full polynomials.  
 


@@ -714,7 +703,7 @@ In this part, we are interesting to compare the simultaneous methods, Ehrlich-Ab
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/EA_DK}
 \caption{The execution time of Ehrlich-Aberth versus Durand-Kerner algorithm on GPU}
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/EA_DK}
 \caption{The execution time of Ehrlich-Aberth versus Durand-Kerner algorithm on GPU}

-\label{fig:01}
+\label{fig:04}

 \end{figure}
 
 This figure show the execution time of the both algorithm EA and DK with sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 1000 to 1000000. We can see that the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm are faster than Durand-Kerner algorithm, with an average of 25 times as fast. Then, when degrees of polynomial exceed 500000 the execution time with EA is of the order 100 whereas DK passes in the order 1000. %with double precision not exceed $10^{-5}$.
 \end{figure}
 
 This figure show the execution time of the both algorithm EA and DK with sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 1000 to 1000000. We can see that the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm are faster than Durand-Kerner algorithm, with an average of 25 times as fast. Then, when degrees of polynomial exceed 500000 the execution time with EA is of the order 100 whereas DK passes in the order 1000. %with double precision not exceed $10^{-5}$.


@@ -723,7 +712,7 @@ This figure show the execution time of the both algorithm EA and DK with sparse
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/EA_DK_nbr}
 \caption{The iteration number of Ehrlich-Aberth versus Durand-Kerner algorithm}
 \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/EA_DK_nbr}
 \caption{The iteration number of Ehrlich-Aberth versus Durand-Kerner algorithm}

-\label{fig:01}
+\label{fig:05}

 \end{figure}
 
 %\subsubsection{The execution time of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on OpenMP(1 core, 4 cores) vs. on a Tesla GPU}
 \end{figure}
 
 %\subsubsection{The execution time of Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm on OpenMP(1 core, 4 cores) vs. on a Tesla GPU}