+%\begin{figure}[htbp]
+%\centering
+ % \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{OpenMP-CUDA}
+%\caption{The OpenMP-CUDA architecture}
+%\label{fig:03}
+%\end{figure}
+%Each thread OpenMP compute the kernels on GPUs,than after each iteration they copy out the data from GPU memory to CPU shared memory. The kernels are re-runs is up to the roots converge sufficiently. Here are below the corresponding algorithm:
+
+$num\_gpus$ OpenMP threads are created using \verb=omp_set_num_threads();=function (step $3$, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-openmp}), the shared memory is created using \verb=#pragma omp parallel shared()= OpenMP function (line $5$, Algorithm\ref{alg2-cuda-openmp}), then each OpenMP thread allocates memory and copies initial data from CPU memory to GPU global memory, executes the kernels on GPU, but computes only his portion of roots indicated with variable \textit{index} initialized in (line 5, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-openmp}), used as input data in the $kernel\_update$ (line 10, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-openmp}). After each iteration, all OpenMP threads synchronize using \verb=#pragma omp barrier;= to gather all the correct values of $\Delta z$, thus allowing the computation the maximum stop condition on vector $\Delta z$ (line 12, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-openmp}). Finally, threads copy the results from GPU memories to CPU memory. The OpenMP threads execute kernels until the roots sufficiently converge.
+\begin{enumerate}
+\begin{algorithm}[htpb]
+\label{alg2-cuda-openmp}
+%\LinesNumbered
+\caption{CUDA-OpenMP Algorithm to find roots with the Ehrlich-Aberth method}
+
+\KwIn{$Z^{0}$ (Initial root's vector), $\varepsilon$ (Error tolerance
+ threshold), P (Polynomial to solve), Pu (Derivative of P), $n$ (Polynomial degree), $\Delta z$ ( Vector of errors for stop condition), $num_gpus$ (number of OpenMP threads/ Number of GPUs), $Size$ (number of roots)}
+
+\KwOut {$Z$ ( Root's vector), $ZPrec$ (Previous root's vector)}
+
+\BlankLine
+
+\item Initialization of P\;
+\item Initialization of Pu\;
+\item Initialization of the solution vector $Z^{0}$\;
+\verb=omp_set_num_threads(num_gpus);=
+\verb=#pragma omp parallel shared(Z,$\Delta$ z,P);=
+\verb=cudaGetDevice(gpu_id);=
+\item Allocate and copy initial data from CPU memory to the GPU global memories\;
+\item index= $Size/num\_gpus$\;
+\item k=0\;
+\While {$error > \epsilon$}{
+\item Let $\Delta z=0$\;
+\item $ kernel\_save(ZPrec,Z)$\;
+\item k=k+1\;
+\item $ kernel\_update(Z,P,Pu,index)$\;
+\item $kernel\_testConverge(\Delta z[gpu\_id],Z,ZPrec)$\;
+%\verb=#pragma omp barrier;=
+\item error= Max($\Delta z$)\;
+}
+
+\item Copy results from GPU memories to CPU memory\;
+\end{algorithm}
+\end{enumerate}
+~\\
+
+
+
+\subsection{Multi-GPU : an MPI-CUDA approach}
+%\begin{figure}[htbp]
+%\centering
+ % \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.2\textwidth]{MPI-CUDA}
+%\caption{The MPI-CUDA architecture }
+%\label{fig:03}
+%\end{figure}
+Our parallel implementation of EA to find root of polynomials using a CUDA-MPI approach is a data parallel approach. It splits input data of the polynomial to solve among MPI processes. In Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-mpi}, input data are the polynomial to solve $P$, the solution vector $Z$, the previous solution vector $ZPrev$, and the value of errors of stop condition $\Delta z$. Let $p$ denote the number of MPI processes on and $n$ the degree of the polynomial to be solved. The algorithm performs a simple data partitioning by creating $p$ portions, of at most $\lceil n/p \rceil$ roots to find per MPI process, for each $Z$ and $ZPrec$. Consequently, each MPI process of rank $k$ will have its own solution vector $Z_{k}$ and $ZPrec$, the error related to the stop condition $\Delta z_{k}$, enabling each MPI process to compute $\lceil n/p \rceil$ roots.
+
+Since a GPU works only on data already allocated in its memory, all local input data, $Z_{k}$, $ZPrec$ and $\Delta z_{k}$, must be transferred from CPU memories to the corresponding GPU memories. Afterwards, the same EA algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg1-cuda}) is run by all processes but on different polynomial subset of roots $ p(x)_{k}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_{i}x^{i}, k=1,...,p$. Each MPI process executes the loop \verb=(While(...)...do)= containing the CUDA kernels but each MPI process computes only its own portion of the roots according to the rule ``''owner computes``''. The local range of roots is indicated with the \textit{index} variable initialized at (line 5, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-mpi}), and passed as an input variable to $kernel\_update$ (line 10, Algorithm \ref{alg2-cuda-mpi}). After each iteration, MPI processes synchronize (\verb=MPI_Allreduce= function) by a reduction on $\Delta z_{k}$ in order to compute the maximum error related to the stop condition. Finally, processes copy the values of new computed roots from GPU memories to CPU memories, then communicate their results to other processes with \verb=MPI_Alltoall= broadcast. If the stop condition is not verified ($error > \epsilon$) then processes stay withing the loop \verb= while(...)...do= until all the roots sufficiently converge.
+
+\begin{enumerate}
+\begin{algorithm}[htpb]
+\label{alg2-cuda-mpi}
+%\LinesNumbered
+\caption{CUDA-MPI Algorithm to find roots with the Ehrlich-Aberth method}
+
+\KwIn{$Z^{0}$ (Initial root's vector), $\varepsilon$ (Error tolerance
+ threshold), P (Polynomial to solve), Pu (Derivative of P), $n$ (Polynomial degrees), $\Delta z$ ( error of stop condition), $num_gpus$ (number of MPI processes/ number of GPUs), Size (number of roots)}
+
+\KwOut {$Z$ (Solution root's vector), $ZPrec$ (Previous solution root's vector)}
+
+\BlankLine
+\item Initialization of P\;
+\item Initialization of Pu\;
+\item Initialization of the solution vector $Z^{0}$\;
+\item Allocate and copy initial data from CPU memories to GPU global memories\;
+\item $index= Size/num_gpus$\;
+\item k=0\;
+\While {$error > \epsilon$}{
+\item Let $\Delta z=0$\;
+\item $kernel\_save(ZPrec,Z)$\;
+\item k=k+1\;
+\item $kernel\_update(Z,P,Pu,index)$\;
+\item $kernel\_testConverge(\Delta z,Z,ZPrec)$\;
+\item ComputeMaxError($\Delta z$,error)\;
+\item Copy results from GPU memories to CPU memories\;
+\item Send $Z[id]$ to all processes\;
+\item Receive $Z[j]$ from every other process j\;
+}
+\end{algorithm}
+\end{enumerate}
+~\\
+
+\section{Experiments}
+\label{sec5}
+We study two categories of polynomials: sparse polynomials and full polynomials.\\
+{\it A sparse polynomial} is a polynomial for which only some coefficients are not null. In this paper, we consider sparse polynomials for which the roots are distributed on 2 distinct circles:
+\begin{equation}
+ \forall \alpha_{1} \alpha_{2} \in C,\forall n_{1},n_{2} \in N^{*}; P(z)= (z^{n_{1}}-\alpha_{1})(z^{n_{2}}-\alpha_{2})
+\end{equation}\noindent
+{\it A full polynomial} is, in contrast, a polynomial for which all the coefficients are not null. A full polynomial is defined by:
+%%\begin{equation}
+ %%\forall \alpha_{i} \in C,\forall n_{i}\in N^{*}; P(z)= \sum^{n}_{i=1}(z^{n^{i}}.a_{i})
+%%\end{equation}
+
+\begin{equation}
+ {\Large \forall a_{i} \in C, i\in N; p(x)=\sum^{n}_{i=0} a_{i}.x^{i}}
+\end{equation}
+For our tests, a CPU Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620@2.40GHz and a GPU K40 (with 6 Go of ram) are used.
+%SIDER : Une meilleure présentation de l'architecture est à faire ici.
+
+In order to evaluate both the M-GPU and Multi-GPU approaches, we performed a set of experiments on a single GPU and multiple GPUs using OpenMP or MPI by EA algorithm, for both sparse and full polynomials of different sizes.
+All experimental results obtained are made in double precision data whereas the convergence threshold of the EA method is set to $10^{-7}$.
+%Since we were more interested in the comparison of the
+%performance behaviors of Ehrlich-Aberth and Durand-Kerner methods on
+%CPUs versus on GPUs.
+The initialization values of the vector solution
+of the methods are given in %Section~\ref{sec:vec_initialization}.
+
+\subsection{Evaluating the M-GPU (CUDA-OpenMP) approach}
+
+We report here the results of the set of experiments with the M-GPU approach for full and sparse polynomials of different degrees, and we compare it with a Single GPU execution.
+\subsubsection{Execution time of the EA method for solving sparse polynomials on multiple GPUs using the M-GPU approach}
+
+In this experiments we report the execution time of the EA algorithm, on single GPU and Multi-GPU with (2,3,4) GPUs, for different sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 100,000 to 1,400,000.
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Sparse_omp}
+\caption{Execution time in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving sparse polynomials on multiple GPUs using the M-GPU approach}
+\label{fig:01}
+\end{figure}
+
+This figure~\ref{fig:01} shows that the (CUDA-OpenMP) M-GPU approach reduces the execution time by a factor up to 100 w.r.t the single GPU approach and a by a factor of 1000 for polynomials exceeding degree 1,000,000. It shows the advantage to use the OpenMP parallel paradigm to gather the capabilities of several GPUs and solve polynomials of very high degrees.
+
+\subsubsection{Execution time in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving full polynomials on multiple GPUs using the M-GPU approach}
+
+The experiments shows the execution time of the EA algorithm, on a single GPU and on multiple GPUs using the CUDA OpenMP approach for full polynomials of degrees ranging from 100,000 to 1,400,000.
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Full_omp}
+\caption{Execution time in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving full polynomials on multiple GPUs using the M-GPU appraoch}
+\label{fig:03}
+\end{figure}
+
+Results with full polynomials show very important savings in execution time. For a polynomial of degree 1,4 million, the CUDA-OpenMP approach with 4 GPUs solves it 4 times as fast as single GPU, thus achieving a quasi-linear speedup.
+
+\subsection{Evaluating the Multi-GPU (CUDA-MPI) approach}
+In this part we perform a set of experiments to compare the Multi-GPU (CUDA MPI) approach with a single GPU, for solving full and sparse polynomials of degrees ranging from 100,000 to 1,400,000.
+
+\subsubsection{Execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving sparse polynomials on multiple GPUs using the Multi-GPU approach}
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Sparse_mpi}
+\caption{Execution time in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving sparse polynomials on multiple GPUs using the Multi-GPU approach}
+\label{fig:02}
+\end{figure}
+~\\
+Figure~\ref{fig:02} shows execution time of EA algorithm, for a single GPU, and multiple GPUs (2, 3, 4) on respectively 2, 3 and four MPI nodes. We can clearly see that the curve for a single GPU is above the other curves, which shows overtime in execution time compared to the Multi-GPU approach. We can see also that the CUDA-MPI approach reduces the execution time by a factor of 10 for polynomials of degree more than 1,000,000. For example, at degree 1000000, the execution time with a single GPU amounted to 10 thousand seconds, while with 4 GPUs, it is lowered to about just one thousand seconds which makes it for a tenfold speedup.
+%%SIDER : Je n'ai pas reformuler car je n'ai pas compris la phrase, merci de l'ecrire ici en fran\cais.
+\\cette figure montre 4 courbes de temps d'exécution pour l'algorithme EA, une courbe avec un seul GPU, 3 courbes pour multiple GPUs(2, 3, 4), on peut constaté clairement que la courbe à un seul GPU est au-dessus des autres courbes, vue sa consomation en temps d'exècution. On peut voir aussi qu'avec l'approche Multi-GPU (CUDA-MPI) reduit le temps d'exècution jusqu'à l'echelle 100 pour le polynômes qui dépasse 1,000,000 tandis que Single GPU est de l'echelle 1000.
+
+\subsubsection{Execution time of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving full polynomials on multiple GPUs using the Multi-GPU appraoch}
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Full_mpi}
+\caption{Execution times in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for full polynomials on GPUs using the Multi-GPU}
+\label{fig:04}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+ Figure \ref{fig:04} shows execution time for a single GPU, and multiple GPUs (2, 3, 4) on respectively 2, 3 and four MPI nodes. With the CUDA-MPI approach, we notice that the three curves are distinct from each other, more we use GPUs more the execution time decreases. On the other hand the curve for a single GPU is well above the other curves.
+
+This is due to the use of MPI parallel paradigm that divides the problem computations and assigns portions to each GPU. But unlike the single GPU which carries all the computations on a single GPU, data communications are introduced, consequently engendering more execution time. But experiments show that execution time is still highly reduced.
+
+
+
+\subsection{Comparing the CUDA-OpenMP approach and the CUDA-MPI approach}
+
+In the previuos section we saw that both approches are very effective in reducing execution time for sparse as well as full polynomials. At this stage, the interesting question is which approach is better. In the fellowing, we present appropriate experiments comparing the two Multi-GPU approaches to answer the question.
+
+\subsubsection{Solving sparse polynomials}
+In this experiment three sparse polynomials of size 200K, 800K and 1,4M are investigated.
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Sparse}
+\caption{Execution time for solving sparse polynomials of three distinct sizes on multiple GPUs using MPI and OpenMP approaches using Ehrlich-Aberth}
+\label{fig:05}
+\end{figure}
+In Figure~\ref{fig:05} there two curves for each polynomial size : one for the MPI-CUDA and another for the OpenMP. We can see that the results are similar between OpenMP and MPI for the polynomials size of 200K. For the size of 800K, the MPI version is a little slower than the OpenMP approach but for for the 1,4M size, there is a slight advantage for the MPI version.
+
+\subsubsection{Solving full polynomials}
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{Full}
+\caption{Execution time for solving full polynomials of three distinct sizes on multiple GPUs using MPI and OpenMP approaches using Ehrlich-Aberth}
+\label{fig:06}
+\end{figure}
+In Figure~\ref{fig:06}, we can see that when it comes to full polynomials, both approaches are almost equivalent.
+
+\subsubsection{Solving sparse and full polynomials of the same size with CUDA-MPI}
+In this experiment we compare the execution time of the EA algorithm according to the number of GPUs for solving sparse and full polynomials on Multi-GPU using MPI. We chose three sparse and full polynomials of size 200K, 800K and 1,4M.
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{MPI}
+\caption{Execution time for solving sparse and full polynomials of three distinct sizes on multiple GPUs using MPI}
+\label{fig:07}
+\end{figure}
+in figure ~\ref{fig:07} we can see that CUDA-MPI can solve sparse and full polynomials of high degrees, the execution time with sparse polynomial are very low comparing to full polynomials. with sparse polynomials the number of monomial are reduce, consequently the number of operation are reduce than the execution time decrease.
+
+\subsubsection{Solving sparse and full polynomials of the same size with CUDA-OpenMP}
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{OMP}
+\caption{Execution time for solving sparse and full polynomials of three distinct sizes on multiple GPUs using OpenMP}
+\label{fig:08}
+\end{figure}
+
+Figure ~\ref{fig:08} shows the impact of sparsity on the effectiveness of the CUDA-OpenMP approach. We can see that the impact fellows the same pattern, a difference in execution time in favor of the sparse polynomials.
+%SIDER : il faut une explication ici. je ne vois pas de prime abords, qu'est-ce qui engendre cette différence, car quelques soient les coefficients nulls ou non nulls, c'est toutes les racines qui sont calculées qu'elles soient similaires ou non (degrés de multiplicité).
+\subsection{Scalability of the EA method on Multi-GPU to solve very high degree polynomials}
+These experiments report the execution time according to the degrees of polynomials ranging from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 for both approaches with sparse and full polynomials.
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{big}
+ \caption{Execution times in seconds of the Ehrlich-Aberth method for solving full polynomials of high degree on 4 GPUs for sizes ranging from 1M to 5M}
+\label{fig:09}
+\end{figure}
+In figure ~\ref{fig:09} we can see that both approaches are scalable and can solve very high degree polynomials. With full polynomial both approaches give interestingly very similar results. For the sparse case however, there are a noticeable difference in favour of MPI when the degree is above 4M. Between 1M and 3M, the OMP approach is more effective and under 1M degree, OMP and MPI approaches are almost equivalent.
+
+%SIDER : il faut une explication sur les différences ici aussi.
+
+%for sparse and full polynomials
