X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/loba-papers.git/blobdiff_plain/d5c9abbacc165803629a3edc02365177cbd79731..e98f1ccead5d206a6da91407b7298efbf0d828d7:/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex b/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex
index 3c07eff..4cc971b 100644
--- a/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex
+++ b/supercomp11/supercomp11.tex
@@ -2,27 +2,33 @@
 \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 for asynchronous iterative load balancing}
+\title{Best effort strategy and virtual load
+  for asynchronous iterative load balancing}
 
 \author{Raphaël Couturier \and
         Arnaud Giersch \and
         Abderrahmane Sider
 }
 
-\institute{F. Author \at
-              first address \\
-              Tel.: +123-45-678910\\
-              Fax: +123-45-678910\\
-              \email{fauthor@example.com}           %  \\
-%             \emph{Present address:} of F. Author  %  if needed
+\institute{R. Couturier \and A. Giersch \at
+              LIFC, University of Franche-Comté, Belfort, France \\
+              % Tel.: +123-45-678910\\
+              % Fax: +123-45-678910\\
+              \email{%
+                raphael.couturier@univ-fcomte.fr,
+                arnaud.giersch@univ-fcomte.fr}
            \and
-           S. Author \at
-              second address
+           A. Sider \at
+              University of Béjaïa, Béjaïa, Algeria \\
+              \email{ar.sider@univ-bejaia.dz}
 }
 
 \maketitle
@@ -36,14 +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
@@ -67,7 +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
@@ -77,7 +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,
@@ -95,7 +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.
 
 
 
@@ -122,12 +128,139 @@ conclusion and some perspectives to this work.
 \section{Bertsekas  and Tsitsiklis' asynchronous load balancing algorithm}
 \label{BT algo}
 
-Comment on the problem in the convergence condition.
+In  order  prove  the  convergence  of  asynchronous  iterative  load  balancing
+Bertesekas         and        Tsitsiklis         proposed         a        model
+in~\cite{bertsekas+tsitsiklis.1997.parallel}.   Here we  recall  some notations.
+Consider  that  $N={1,...,n}$  processors   are  connected  through  a  network.
+Communication links  are represented by  a connected undirected  graph $G=(N,V)$
+where $V$ is the set of links connecting differents processors. In this work, we
+consider that  processors are  homogeneous for sake  of simplicity. It  is quite
+easy to tackle the  heterogeneous case~\cite{ElsMonPre02}. Load of processor $i$
+at  time $t$  is  represented  by $x_i(t)\geq  0$.   Let $V(i)$  be  the set  of
+neighbors of processor  $i$.  Each processor $i$ has an estimate  of the load of
+each  of its  neighbors $j  \in V(i)$  represented by  $x_j^i(t)$.  According to
+asynchronism and communication  delays, this estimate may be  outdated.  We also
+consider that the load is described by a continuous variable.
+
+When a processor  send a part of its  load to one or some of  its neighbors, the
+transfer takes time to be completed.  Let $s_{ij}(t)$ be the amount of load that
+processor $i$ has transfered to processor $j$ at time $t$ and let $r_{ij}(t)$ be the
+amount of  load received by processor $j$  from processor $i$ at  time $t$. Then
+the amount of load of processor $i$ at time $t+1$ is given by:
+\begin{equation}
+x_i(t+1)=x_i(t)-\sum_{j\in V(i)} s_{ij}(t) + \sum_{j\in V(i)} r_{ji}(t)
+\label{eq:ping-pong}
+\end{equation}
+
+
+Some  conditions are  required to  ensure the  convergence. One  of them  can be
+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}
+for any  processor $i$ and any  $j \in V(i)$ such  that $x_i(t)>x_j^i(t)$.  This
+condition aims  at avoiding a processor  to send a  part of its load  and beeing
+less loaded after that.
+
+Nevertheless,  we  think that  this  condition may  lead  to  deadlocks in  some
+cases. For example, if we consider  only three processors and that processor $1$
+is linked to processor $2$ which is  also linked to processor $3$ (i.e. a simple
+chain wich 3 processors). Now consider we have the following values at time $t$:
+\begin{eqnarray*}
+x_1(t)=10   \\
+x_2(t)=100   \\
+x_3(t)=99.99\\
+ x_3^2(t)=99.99\\
+\end{eqnarray*}
+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 \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.
+
 
 \section{Best effort strategy}
 \label{Best-effort}
 
-
+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 :
+\begin{itemize}
+\item un des moins chargés (vmin) ;
+\item un des plus chargés (vmax),
+\end{itemize}
+puis on équilibre avec vmin en s'assurant que notre charge reste
+toujours supérieure à celle de vmin et à celle de vmax.
+
+On envoie donc (avec "self" pour soi-même) :
+\[
+    \min\left(\frac{load(self) - load(vmin)}{2}, load(self) - load(vmax)\right)
+\]
+
+\paragraph{makhoul} Ordonne les voisins du moins chargé au plus chargé
+puis calcule les différences de charge entre soi-même et chacun des
+voisins.
+
+Ensuite, pour chaque voisin, dans l'ordre, et tant qu'on reste plus
+chargé que le voisin en question, on lui envoie 1/(N+1) de la
+différence calculée au départ, avec N le nombre de voisins.
+
+C'est l'algorithme~2 dans~\cite{bahi+giersch+makhoul.2008.scalable}.
 
 \section{Virtual load}
 \label{Virtual load}
@@ -135,10 +268,102 @@ Comment on the problem in the convergence condition.
 \section{Simulations}
 \label{Simulations}
 
+In order to test and validate our approaches, we wrote a simulator
+using the SimGrid
+framework~\cite{casanova+legrand+quinson.2008.simgrid}.  The process
+model is detailed in the next section (\ref{Sim model}), then the
+results of the simulations are presented in section~\ref{Results}.
+
 \subsection{Simulation model}
+\label{Sim model}
+
+\begin{verbatim}
+Communications
+==============
+
+There are two receiving channels per host: control for information
+messages, and data for load transfers.
+
+Process model
+=============
+
+Each process is made of 3 threads: a receiver thread, a computing
+thread, and a load-balancer thread.
+
+* Receiver thread
+  ---------------
+
+    Loop
+    | wait for a message to come, either on data channel, or on ctrl channel
+    | push received message in a buffer of received messages
+    | -> ctrl messages on the one side
+    | -> data messages on the other side
+    +-
+
+   The loop terminates when a "finalize" message is received on each
+   channel.
+
+* Computing thread
+  ----------------
+
+    Loop
+    | if we received some real load, get it (data messages)
+    | if there is some real load to send, send it
+    | if we own some load, simulate some computing on it
+    | sleep a bit if we are looping too fast
+    +-
+    send CLOSE on data for all neighbors
+    wait for CLOSE on data from all neighbors
+
+  The loop terminates when process::still_running() returns false.
+  (read the source for full details...)
+
+* Load-balancing thread
+  ---------------------
+
+    Loop
+    | call load-balancing algorithm
+    | send ctrl messages
+    | sleep (min_lb_iter_duration)
+    | receive ctrl messages
+    +-
+    send CLOSE on ctrl for all neighbors
+    wait for CLOSE on ctrl from all neighbors
+
+  The loop terminates when process::still_running() returns false.
+  (read the source for full details...)
+\end{verbatim}
 
 \subsection{Validation of our approaches}
+\label{Results}
+
+
+On veut montrer quoi ? :
+
+1) best plus rapide que les autres (simple, makhoul)
+2) avantage virtual load
+
+Est ce qu'on peut trouver des contre exemple?
+Topologies variées
+
+
+Simulation avec temps définies assez long et on mesure la qualité avec : volume de calcul effectué, volume de données échangées
+Mais aussi simulation avec temps court qui montre que seul best converge
+
+
+Expés avec ratio calcul/comm rapide et lent
+
+Quelques expés avec charge initiale aléatoire plutot que sur le premier proc
+
+Cadre processeurs homogènes
+
+Topologies statiques
+
+On ne tient pas compte de la vitesse des liens donc on la considère homogène
+
+Prendre un réseau hétérogène et rendre processeur homogène
 
+Taille : 10 100 très gros
 
 \section{Conclusion and perspectives}