X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/loba-papers.git/blobdiff_plain/69768dd70773e43e60a13d06dad73a65c00dfb85..e98f1ccead5d206a6da91407b7298efbf0d828d7:/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex b/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex index 249b676..4cc971b 100644 --- a/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex +++ b/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex @@ -2,9 +2,12 @@ \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{mathptmx} +\usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{courier} \usepackage{graphicx} +\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert} % \abs{x} -> |x| + \begin{document} \title{Best effort strategy and virtual load @@ -39,14 +42,14 @@ algorithm~\cite[section~7.4]{bertsekas+tsitsiklis.1997.parallel} is certainly the most well known algorithm for which the convergence proof is given. From a practical point of view, when a node wants to balance a part of its load to some of its neighbors, the strategy is not described. In this -paper, we propose a strategy called \texttt{best effort} which tries to balance +paper, we propose a strategy called \emph{best effort} which tries to balance the load of a node to all its less loaded neighbors while ensuring that all the nodes concerned by the load balancing phase have the same amount of load. Moreover, asynchronous iterative algorithms in which an asynchronous load balancing algorithm is implemented most of the time can dissociate messages concerning load transfers and message concerning load information. In order to increase the converge of a load balancing algorithm, we propose a simple -heuristic called \texttt{virtual load} which allows a node that receives an load +heuristic called \emph{virtual load} which allows a node that receives an load information message to integrate the load that it will receive later in its load (virtually) and consequently sends a (real) part of its load to some of its neighbors. In order to validate our approaches, we have defined a simulator @@ -70,7 +73,7 @@ where computer nodes are considered homogeneous and with homogeneous load with no external load. In this context, Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis have proposed an algorithm which is definitively a reference for many works. In their work, they proved that under classical hypotheses of asynchronous iterative algorithms and -a special constraint avoiding \texttt{ping-pong} effect, an asynchronous +a special constraint avoiding \emph{ping-pong} effect, an asynchronous iterative algorithm converge to the uniform load distribution. This work has been extended by many authors. For example, DASUD~\cite{cortes+ripoll+cedo+al.2002.asynchronous} propose a version working @@ -80,7 +83,7 @@ Although the Bertsekas and Tsitsiklis' algorithm describes the condition to ensure the convergence, there is no indication or strategy to really implement the load distribution. In other word, a node can send a part of its load to one or many of its neighbors while all the convergence conditions are -followed. Consequently, we propose a new strategy called \texttt{best effort} +followed. Consequently, we propose a new strategy called \emph{best effort} that tries to balance the load of a node to all its less loaded neighbors while ensuring that all the nodes concerned by the load balancing phase have the same amount of load. Moreover, when real asynchronous applications are considered, @@ -98,7 +101,7 @@ often much nore longer that to time to transfer a load information message. So, when a node receives the information that later it will receive a data message, it can take this information into account and it can consider that its new load is larger. Consequently, it can send a part of it real load to some of its -neighbors if required. We call this trick the \texttt{virtual load} mecanism. +neighbors if required. We call this trick the \emph{virtual load} mecanism. @@ -151,7 +154,7 @@ x_i(t+1)=x_i(t)-\sum_{j\in V(i)} s_{ij}(t) + \sum_{j\in V(i)} r_{ji}(t) Some conditions are required to ensure the convergence. One of them can be -called the \texttt{ping-pong} condition which specifies that: +called the \emph{ping-pong} condition which specifies that: \begin{equation} x_i(t)-\sum _{k\in V(i)} s_{ik}(t) \geq x_j^i(t)+s_{ij}(t) \end{equation} @@ -172,7 +175,7 @@ x_3(t)=99.99\\ In this case, processor $2$ can either sends load to processor $1$ or processor $3$. If it sends load to processor $1$ it will not satisfy condition (\ref{eq:ping-pong}) because after the sending it will be less loaded that -$x_3^2(t)$. So we consider that the \texttt{ping-pong} condition is probably to +$x_3^2(t)$. So we consider that the \emph{ping-pong} condition is probably to strong. Currently, we did not try to make another convergence proof without this condition or with a weaker condition. @@ -180,16 +183,60 @@ condition or with a weaker condition. \section{Best effort strategy} \label{Best-effort} -\textbf{À traduire} Ordonne les voisins du moins chargé au plus chargé. -Trouve ensuite, en les prenant dans ce ordre, le nombre maximal de -voisins tels que tous ont une charge inférieure à la moyenne des -charges des voisins sélectionnés, et de soi-même. - -Les transferts de charge sont ensuite fait en visant cette moyenne pour -tous les voisins sélectionnés. On envoie une quantité de charge égale -à (moyenne - charge\_du\_voisin). - -~\\\textbf{Question} faut-il décrire les stratégies makhoul et simple ? +We will describe here a new load-balancing strategy that we called +\emph{best effort}. The general idea behind this strategy is, for a +processor, to send some load to the most of its neighbors, doing its +best to reach the equilibrium between those neighbors and himself. + +More precisely, when a processors $i$ is in its load-balancing phase, +he proceeds as following. +\begin{enumerate} +\item First, the neighbors are sorted in non-decreasing order of their + known loads $x^i_j(t)$. + +\item Then, this sorted list is traversed in order to find its largest + prefix such as the load of each selected neighbor is lesser than: + \begin{itemize} + \item the processor's own load, and + \item the mean of the loads of the selected neighbors and of the + processor's load. + \end{itemize} + Let's call $S_i(t)$ the set of the selected neighbors, and + $\bar{x}(t)$ the mean of the loads of the selected neighbors and of + the processor load: + \begin{equation*} + \bar{x}(t) = \frac{1}{\abs{S_i(t)} + 1} + \left( x_i(t) + \sum_{j\in S_i(t)} x^i_j(t) \right) + \end{equation*} + The following properties hold: + \begin{equation*} + \begin{cases} + S_i(t) \subset V(i) \\ + x^i_j(t) < x_i(t) & \forall j \in S_i(t) \\ + x^i_j(t) < \bar{x} & \forall j \in S_i(t) \\ + x^i_j(t) \leq x^i_k(t) & \forall j \in S_i(t), \forall k \in V(i) \setminus S_i(t) \\ + \bar{x} \leq x_i(t) + \end{cases} + \end{equation*} + +\item Once this selection is completed, processor $i$ sends to each of + the selected neighbor $j\in S_i(t)$ an amount of load $s_{ij}(t) = + \bar{x} - x^i_j(t)$. + + From the above equations, and notably from the definition of + $\bar{x}$, it can easily be verified that: + \begin{equation*} + \begin{cases} + x_i(t) - \sum_{j\in S_i(t)} s_{ij}(t) = \bar{x} \\ + x^i_j(t) + s_{ij}(t) = \bar{x} & \forall j \in S_i(t) + \end{cases} + \end{equation*} +\end{enumerate} + +\section{Other strategies} +\label{Other} + +\textbf{Question} faut-il décrire les stratégies makhoul et simple ? \paragraph{simple} Tentative de respecter simplement les conditions de Bertsekas. Parmi les voisins moins chargés que soi, on sélectionne :