-\begin{document} \RCE{Titre a confirmer.} \title{Comparative performance
-analysis of simulated grid-enabled numerical iterative algorithms}
+\begin{document}
+\title{Grid-enabled simulation of large-scale linear iterative solvers}
%\itshape{\journalnamelc}\footnotemark[2]}
\author{Charles Emile Ramamonjisoa\affil{1},
Email:~\email{l.zianekhodja@ulg.ac.be}
}
-\begin{abstract} The behavior of multi-core applications is always a challenge
-to predict, especially with a new architecture for which no experiment has been
-performed. With some applications, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build
-accurate performance models. That is why another solution is to use a simulation
-tool which allows us to change many parameters of the architecture (network
-bandwidth, latency, number of processors) and to simulate the execution of such
-applications. The main contribution of this paper is to show that the use of a
-simulation tool (here we have decided to use the SimGrid toolkit) can really
-help developers to better tune their applications for a given multi-core
-architecture.
-
-%In particular we focus our attention on two parallel iterative algorithms based
-%on the Multisplitting algorithm and we compare them to the GMRES algorithm.
-%These algorithms are used to solve linear systems. Two different variants of
-%the Multisplitting are studied: one using synchronoous iterations and another
-%one with asynchronous iterations.
-In this paper we focus our attention on the simulation of iterative algorithms to solve sparse linear systems on large clusters. We study the behavior of the widely used GMRES algorithm and two different variants of the Multisplitting algorithms: one using synchronous iterations and another one with asynchronous iterations.
-For each algorithm we have simulated
-different architecture parameters to evaluate their influence on the overall
-execution time.
-%The obtain simulated results confirm the real results
-%previously obtained on different real multi-core architectures and also confirm
-%the efficiency of the asynchronous Multisplitting algorithm compared to the
-%synchronous GMRES method.
-The simulations confirm the real results previously obtained on different real multi-core architectures and also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous Multisplitting algorithm on distant clusters compared to the synchronous GMRES algorithm.
+\begin{abstract} %% The behavior of multi-core applications is always a challenge
+%% to predict, especially with a new architecture for which no experiment has been
+%% performed. With some applications, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build
+%% accurate performance models. That is why another solution is to use a simulation
+%% tool which allows us to change many parameters of the architecture (network
+%% bandwidth, latency, number of processors) and to simulate the execution of such
+%% applications. The main contribution of this paper is to show that the use of a
+%% simulation tool (here we have decided to use the SimGrid toolkit) can really
+%% help developers to better tune their applications for a given multi-core
+%% architecture.
+
+%% In this paper we focus our attention on the simulation of iterative algorithms to solve sparse linear systems on large clusters. We study the behavior of the widely used GMRES algorithm and two different variants of the Multisplitting algorithms: one using synchronous iterations and another one with asynchronous iterations.
+%% For each algorithm we have simulated
+%% different architecture parameters to evaluate their influence on the overall
+%% execution time.
+%% The simulations confirm the real results previously obtained on different real multi-core architectures and also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous Multisplitting algorithm on distant clusters compared to the synchronous GMRES algorithm.
+
+The behavior of multi-core applications is always a challenge to predict, especially with a new architecture for which no experiment has been performed. With some applications, it is difficult, if not impossible, to build accurate performance models. That is why another solution is to use a simulation tool which allows us to change many parameters of the architecture (network bandwidth, latency, number of processors) and to simulate the execution of such applications.
+
+In this paper we focus on the simulation of iterative algorithms to solve sparse linear systems. We study the behavior of the GMRES algorithm and two different variants of the multisplitting algorithms: using synchronous or asynchronous iterations. For each algorithm we have simulated different architecture parameters to evaluate their influence on the overall execution time. The simulations confirm the real results previously obtained on different real multi-core architectures and also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous multisplitting algorithm on distant clusters compared to the GMRES algorithm.
\end{abstract}
from its neighbors. We say that the iteration computation follows a
\textit{synchronous} scheme. In the asynchronous scheme a task can compute a new
iteration without having to wait for the data dependencies coming from its
-neighbors. Both communication and computations are \textit{asynchronous}
+neighbors. Both communications and computations are \textit{asynchronous}
inducing that there is no more idle time, due to synchronizations, between two
iterations~\cite{bcvc06:ij}. This model presents some advantages and drawbacks
-that we detail in section~\ref{sec:asynchro} but even if the number of
+that we detail in Section~\ref{sec:asynchro} but even if the number of
iterations required to converge is generally greater than for the synchronous
case, it appears that the asynchronous iterative scheme can significantly
reduce overall execution times by suppressing idle times due to
challenging and labor intensive~\cite{Calheiros:2011:CTM:1951445.1951450}. This
problematic is even more difficult for the asynchronous scheme where a small
parameter variation of the execution platform and of the application data can
-lead to very different numbers of iterations to reach the converge and so to
+lead to very different numbers of iterations to reach the convergence and so to
very different execution times. In this challenging context we think that the
use of a simulation tool can greatly leverage the possibility of testing various
platform scenarios.
-The main contribution of this paper is to show that the use of a simulation tool
-(i.e. the SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}) in the context of real parallel
-applications (i.e. large linear system solvers) can help developers to better
-tune their application for a given multi-core architecture. To show the validity
-of this approach we first compare the simulated execution of the multisplitting
-algorithm with the GMRES (Generalized Minimal Residual)
-solver~\cite{saad86} in synchronous mode. The simulation results allow us to
-determine which method to choose given a specified multi-core architecture.
-
-\LZK{Pas trop convainquant comme argument pour valider l'approche de simulation. \\On peut dire par exemple: on a pu simuler différents algos itératifs à large échelle (le plus connu GMRES et deux variantes de multisplitting) et la simulation nous a permis (sans avoir le vrai matériel) de déterminer quelle serait la meilleure solution pour une telle configuration de l'archi ou vice versa.\\A revoir...}
-\DL{OK : ajout d'une phrase précisant tout cela}
-
-Moreover the obtained results on different simulated multi-core architectures
-confirm the real results previously obtained on non simulated architectures.
+The {\bf main contribution of this paper} is to show that the use of a
+simulation tool (i.e. the SimGrid toolkit~\cite{SimGrid}) in the context of real
+parallel applications (i.e. large linear system solvers) can help developers to
+better tune their applications for a given multi-core architecture. To show the
+validity of this approach we first compare the simulated execution of the Krylov
+multisplitting algorithm with the GMRES (Generalized Minimal RESidual)
+solver~\cite{saad86} in synchronous mode. The simulation results allow us to
+determine which method to choose for a given multi-core architecture.
+Moreover the obtained results on different simulated multi-core architectures
+confirm the real results previously obtained on non simulated architectures.
More precisely the simulated results are in accordance (i.e. with the same order
-of magnitude) with the works presented in~\cite{couturier15}, which show that the synchronous
-multisplitting method is more efficient than GMRES for large scale clusters.
-
-\LZK{Il n y a pas dans la partie expé cette comparaison et confirmation des
-résultats entre la simulation et l'exécution réelle des algos sur les vrais
-clusters.\\ Sinon on pourrait ajouter dans la partie expé une référence vers le
-journal supercomput de krylov multi pour confirmer que cette méthode est
-meilleure que GMRES sur les clusters large échelle.} \DL{OK ajout d'une phrase.
-Par contre je n'ai pas la ref. Merci de la mettre}
-
-Simulated results also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous
-multisplitting algorithm compared to the synchronous GMRES especially in case of
-geographically distant clusters.
-
-\LZK{P.S.: Pour tout le papier, le principal objectif n'est pas de faire des comparaisons entre des méthodes itératives!!\\Sinon, les deux algorithmes Krylov multisplitting synchrone et multisplitting asynchrone sont plus efficaces que GMRES sur des clusters à large échelle.\\Et préciser, si c'est vraiment le cas, que le multisplitting asynchrone est plus efficace et adapté aux clusters distants par rapport aux deux autres algos (je n'ai pas encore lu la partie expé)}
-\DL{Tu as raison on s'est posé la question de garder ou non cette partie des résultats. On a décidé de la garder pour avoir plus de chose à montrer. J'ai essayer de clarifier un peu}
+of magnitude) with the works presented in~\cite{couturier15}, which show that
+the synchronous Krylov multisplitting method is more efficient than GMRES for large
+scale clusters. Simulated results also confirm the efficiency of the
+asynchronous multisplitting algorithm compared to the synchronous GMRES
+especially in case of geographically distant clusters.
-In
-this way and with a simple computing architecture (a laptop) SimGrid allows us
+In this way and with a simple computing architecture (a laptop) SimGrid allows us
to run a test campaign of a real parallel iterative applications on
different simulated multi-core architectures. To our knowledge, there is no
related work on the large-scale multi-core simulation of a real synchronous and
This paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:asynchro} presents the
iteration model we use and more particularly the asynchronous scheme. In
-section~\ref{sec:simgrid} the SimGrid simulation toolkit is presented.
+Section~\ref{sec:simgrid} the SimGrid simulation toolkit is presented.
Section~\ref{sec:04} details the different solvers that we use. Finally our
-experimental results are presented in section~\ref{sec:expe} followed by some
+experimental results are presented in Section~\ref{sec:expe} followed by some
concluding remarks and perspectives.
-\LZK{Proposition d'un titre pour le papier: Grid-enabled simulation of large-scale linear iterative solvers.}
-
\section{The asynchronous iteration model and the motivations of our work}
\label{sec:asynchro}
-Asynchronous iterative methods have been studied for many years theoritecally and
+Asynchronous iterative methods have been studied for many years theoretically and
practically. Many methods have been considered and convergence results have been
proved. These methods can be used to solve, in parallel, fixed point problems
(i.e. problems for which the solution is $x^\star =f(x^\star)$. In practice,
-asynchronous iterations methods can be used to solve, for example, linear and
+asynchronous iteration methods can be used to solve, for example, linear and
non-linear systems of equations or optimization problems, interested readers are
invited to read~\cite{BT89,bahi07}.
requires very few modifications to be able to be executed in both variants. In
practice, only the communications and convergence detection are different. In
the synchronous mode, iterations are synchronized whereas in the asynchronous
-one, they are not. It should be noticed that non blocking communications can be
+one, they are not. It should be noticed that non-blocking communications can be
used in both modes. Concerning the convergence detection, synchronous variants
can use a global convergence procedure which acts as a global synchronization
point. In the asynchronous model, the convergence detection is more tricky as
consult~\cite{myBCCV05c,bahi07,ccl09:ij}.
The number of iterations required to reach the convergence is generally greater
-for the asynchronous scheme (this number depends depends on the delay of the
+for the asynchronous scheme (this number depends on the delay of the
messages). Note that, it is not the case in the synchronous mode where the
number of iterations is the same than in the sequential mode. In this way, the
set of the parameters of the platform (number of nodes, power of nodes,
-inter and intra clusters bandwidth and latency, \ldots) and of the
+inter and intra clusters bandwidth and latency,~\ldots) and of the
application can drastically change the number of iterations required to get the
convergence. It follows that asynchronous iterative algorithms are difficult to
optimize since the financial and deployment costs on large scale multi-core
-architecture are often very important. So, prior to delpoyment and tests it
+architectures are often very important. So, prior to deployment and tests it
seems very promising to be able to simulate the behavior of asynchronous
-iterative algorithms. The problematic is then to show that the results produce
+iterative algorithms. The problematic is then to show that the results produced
by simulation are in accordance with reality i.e. of the same order of
magnitude. To our knowledge, there is no study on this problematic.
A_{\ell\ell} x_\ell = c_\ell,\mbox{~for~}\ell=1,\ldots,L,
\label{eq:03}
\end{equation}
-where right-hand sides $c_\ell=b_\ell-\sum_{m\neq\ell}A_{\ell m}x_m$ are computed using the shared vectors $x_m$. In this paper, we use the well-known iterative method GMRES ({\it Generalized Minimal RESidual})~\cite{saad86} as an inner iteration to approximate the solutions of the different splittings arising from the block Jacobi multisplitting of matrix $A$. The algorithm in Figure~\ref{alg:01} shows the main key points of our block Jacobi two-stage method executed by a cluster of processors. In line~\ref{solve}, the linear sub-system~(\ref{eq:03}) is solved in parallel using GMRES method where $\MIG$ and $\TOLG$ are the maximum number of inner iterations and the tolerance threshold for GMRES respectively. The convergence of the two-stage multisplitting methods, based on synchronous or asynchronous iterations, has been studied by many authors for example~\cite{Bru95,bahi07}.
+where right-hand sides $c_\ell=b_\ell-\sum_{m\neq\ell}A_{\ell m}x_m$ are computed using the shared vectors $x_m$. In this paper, we use the well-known iterative method GMRES~\cite{saad86} as an inner iteration to approximate the solutions of the different splittings arising from the block Jacobi multisplitting of matrix $A$. The algorithm in Figure~\ref{alg:01} shows the main key points of our block Jacobi two-stage method executed by a cluster of processors. In line~\ref{solve}, the linear sub-system~(\ref{eq:03}) is solved in parallel using GMRES method where $\MIG$ and $\TOLG$ are the maximum number of inner iterations and the tolerance threshold for GMRES respectively. The convergence of the two-stage multisplitting methods, based on synchronous or asynchronous iterations, has been studied by many authors for example~\cite{Bru95,bahi07}.
\begin{figure}[t]
%\begin{algorithm}[t]
\subsection{Simulation of the two-stage methods using SimGrid toolkit}
\label{sec:04.02}
-One of our objectives when simulating the application in Simgrid is, as in real
+One of our objectives when simulating the application in SimGrid is, as in real
life, to get accurate results (solutions of the problem) but also to ensure the
test reproducibility under the same conditions. According to our experience,
-very few modifications are required to adapt a MPI program for the Simgrid
+very few modifications are required to adapt a MPI program for the SimGrid
simulator using SMPI (Simulator MPI). The first modification is to include SMPI
-libraries and related header files (smpi.h). The second modification is to
+libraries and related header files (\verb+smpi.h+). The second modification is to
suppress all global variables by replacing them with local variables or using a
-Simgrid selector called "runtime automatic switching"
+SimGrid selector called "runtime automatic switching"
(smpi/privatize\_global\_variables). Indeed, global variables can generate side
effects on runtime between the threads running in the same process and generated by
-Simgrid to simulate the grid environment.
-
-%\RC{On vire cette phrase ?} \RCE {Si c'est la phrase d'avant sur les threads, je pense qu'on peut la retenir car c'est l'explication du pourquoi Simgrid n'aime pas les variables globales. Si c'est pas bien dit, on peut la reformuler. Si c'est la phrase ci-apres, effectivement, on peut la virer si elle preterais a discussion}The
-%last modification on the MPI program pointed out for some cases, the review of
-%the sequence of the MPI\_Isend, MPI\_Irecv and MPI\_Waitall instructions which
-%might cause an infinite loop.
-
+SimGrid to simulate the grid environment.
-\paragraph{Simgrid Simulator parameters}
-\ \\ \noindent Before running a Simgrid benchmark, many parameters for the
+\paragraph{Parameters of the simulation in SimGrid}
+\ \\ \noindent Before running a SimGrid benchmark, many parameters for the
computation platform must be defined. For our experiments, we consider platforms
in which several clusters are geographically distant, so there are intra and
inter-cluster communications. In the following, these parameters are described:
\begin{itemize}
\item hostfile: hosts description file.
\item platform: file describing the platform architecture: clusters (CPU power,
-\dots{}), intra cluster network description, inter cluster network (bandwidth bw,
-latency lat, \dots{}).
+\dots{}), intra cluster network description, inter cluster network (bandwidth $bw$,
+latency $lat$, \dots{}).
\item archi : grid computational description (number of clusters, number of
-nodes/processors for each cluster).
+nodes/processors in each cluster).
\end{itemize}
\noindent
In addition, the following arguments are given to the programs at runtime:
\begin{itemize}
\item maximum number of inner iterations $\MIG$ and outer iterations $\MIM$,
\item inner precision $\TOLG$ and outer precision $\TOLM$,
- \item matrix sizes of the 3D Poisson problem: N$_{x}$, N$_{y}$ and N$_{z}$ on axis $x$, $y$ and $z$ respectively,
- \item matrix diagonal value is fixed to $6.0$ for synchronous Krylov multisplitting experiments and $6.2$ for asynchronous block Jacobi experiments,
+ \item matrix sizes of the problem: N$_{x}$, N$_{y}$ and N$_{z}$ on axis $x$, $y$ and $z$ respectively (in our experiments, we solve 3D problem, see Section~\ref{3dpoisson}),
+ \item matrix diagonal value is fixed to $6.0$ for synchronous experiments and $6.2$ for asynchronous ones,
\item matrix off-diagonal value is fixed to $-1.0$,
\item number of vectors in matrix $S$ (i.e. value of $s$),
\item maximum number of iterations $\MIC$ and precision $\TOLC$ for CGLS method,
\item execution mode: synchronous or asynchronous.
\end{itemize}
-It should also be noticed that both solvers have been executed with the Simgrid selector \texttt{-cfg=smpi/running\_power} which determines the computational power (here 19GFlops) of the simulator host machine.
+It should also be noticed that both solvers have been executed with the SimGrid selector \texttt{-cfg=smpi/running\_power} which determines the computational power (here 19GFlops) of the simulator host machine.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-\section{Experimental Results}
+\section{Experimental results}
\label{sec:expe}
-In this section, experiments for both Multisplitting algorithms are reported. First the 3D Poisson problem used in our experiments is described.
+In this section, experiments for both multisplitting algorithms are reported. First the 3D Poisson problem used in our experiments is described.
\subsection{The 3D Poisson problem}
+\label{3dpoisson}
We use our two-stage algorithms to solve the well-known Poisson problem $\nabla^2\phi=f$~\cite{Polyanin01}. In three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^3$, the problem takes the following form:
\textbf{Step 2}: Collect the software materials needed for the experimentation.
In our case, we have two variants algorithms for the resolution of the
-3D-Poisson problem: (1) using the classical GMRES; (2) and the Multisplitting
-method. In addition, the Simgrid simulator has been chosen to simulate the
-behaviors of the distributed applications. Simgrid is running in a virtual
+3D-Poisson problem: (1) using the classical GMRES; (2) and the multisplitting
+method. In addition, the SimGrid simulator has been chosen to simulate the
+behaviors of the distributed applications. SimGrid is running in a virtual
machine on a simple laptop. \\
\textbf{Step 3}: Fix the criteria which will be used for the future
and on the other hand the execution time and the number of iterations to reach the convergence. \\
\textbf{Step 4 }: Set up the different grid testbed environments that will be
-simulated in the simulator tool to run the program. The following architecture
-has been configured in Simgrid : 2x16, 4x8, 4x16, 8x8 and 2x50. The first number
+simulated in the simulator tool to run the program. The following architectures
+have been configured in SimGrid : 2$\times$16, 4$\times$8, 4$\times$16, 8$\times$8 and 2$\times$50. The first number
represents the number of clusters in the grid and the second number represents
-the number of hosts (processors/cores) in each cluster. The network has been
+the number of hosts (processors/cores) in each cluster. The network has been
designed to operate with a bandwidth equals to 10Gbits (resp. 1Gbits/s) and a
latency of 8.10$^{-6}$ seconds (resp. 5.10$^{-5}$) for the intra-clusters links
(resp. inter-clusters backbone links). \\
\textbf{Step 6} : Collect and analyze the output results.
-\subsection{Factors impacting distributed applications performance in
-a grid environment}
+\subsection{Factors impacting distributed applications performance in a grid environment}
When running a distributed application in a computational grid, many factors may
have a strong impact on the performance. First of all, the architecture of the
is the network configuration. Two main network parameters can modify drastically
the program output results:
\begin{enumerate}
-\item the network bandwidth (bw=bits/s) also known as "the data-carrying
+\item the network bandwidth ($bw$ in bits/s) also known as "the data-carrying
capacity" of the network is defined as the maximum of data that can transit
from one point to another in a unit of time.
-\item the network latency (lat : microsecond) defined as the delay from the
+\item the network latency ($lat$ in microseconds) defined as the delay from the
start time to send a simple data from a source to a destination.
\end{enumerate}
Upon the network characteristics, another impacting factor is the volume of data exchanged between the nodes in the cluster
on the other hand, the "inter-network" which is the backbone link between
clusters. In practice, these two networks have different speeds.
The intra-network generally works like a high speed local network with a
- high bandwith and very low latency. In opposite, the inter-network connects
- clusters sometime via heterogeneous networks components throuth internet with
+ high bandwidth and very low latency. In opposite, the inter-network connects
+ clusters sometime via heterogeneous networks components through internet with
a lower speed. The network between distant clusters might be a bottleneck
for the global performance of the application.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8\\ %\hline
- Network & N2 : bw=1Gbits/s - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ %\hline
- - & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =170 x 170 x 170 \\ \hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 16, 4 $\times$ 8, 4 $\times$ 16 and 8 $\times$ 8\\ %\hline
+ Inter Network N2 & bw=1Gbits/s - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
+ Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ $\times$ N$_{y}$ $\times$ N$_{z}$ =150 $\times$ 150 $\times$ 150\\ %\hline
+ - & N$_{x}$ $\times$ N$_{y}$ $\times$ N$_{z}$ =170 $\times$ 170 $\times$ 170 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-\caption{Test conditions: various grid configurations with the input matix size N$_{x}$=150 or N$_{x}$=170 \RC{N2 n'est pas défini..}\RC{Nx est défini, Ny? Nz?}
+\caption{Test conditions: various grid configurations with the input matrix size N$_{x}$=N$_{y}$=N$_{z}$=150 or 170 \RC{N2 n'est pas défini..}\RC{Nx est défini, Ny? Nz?}
\AG{La lettre 'x' n'est pas le symbole de la multiplication. Utiliser \texttt{\textbackslash times}. Idem dans le texte, les figures, etc.}}
\label{tab:01}
\end{center}
In this section, we analyze the performance of algorithms running on various
-grid configurations (2x16, 4x8, 4x16 and 8x8). First, the results in Figure~\ref{fig:01}
+grid configurations (2 $\times$ 16, 4 $\times$ 8, 4 $\times$ 16 and 8 $\times$ 8) and using an inter-network N2 defined in the test conditions in Table~\ref{tab:01}. First, the results in Figure~\ref{fig:01}
show for all grid configurations the non-variation of the number of iterations of
classical GMRES for a given input matrix size; it is not the case for the
multisplitting method.
-\RC{CE attention tu n'as pas mis de label dans tes figures, donc c'est le bordel, j'en mets mais vérifie...}
-\RC{Les légendes ne sont pas explicites...}
+%\RC{CE attention tu n'as pas mis de label dans tes figures, donc c'est le bordel, j'en mets mais vérifie...}
+%\RC{Les légendes ne sont pas explicites...}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_nx_150_and_nx_170.pdf}
\end{center}
- \caption{Various grid configurations with the input matrix size N$_{x}$=150 and N$_{x}$=170\RC{idem}
+ \caption{Various grid configurations with the input matrix size $N_{x}=150$ and $N_{x}=170$\RC{idem}
\AG{Utiliser le point comme séparateur décimal et non la virgule. Idem dans les autres figures.}}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure}
-The execution times between the two algorithms is significant with different
-grid architectures, even with the same number of processors (for example, 2x16
-and 4x8). We can observ the low sensitivity of the Krylov multisplitting method
+Secondly, the execution times between the two algorithms is significant with different
+grid architectures, even with the same number of processors (for example, 2 $\times$ 16
+and 4 $\times$ 8). We can observ the sensitivity of the Krylov multisplitting method
(compared with the classical GMRES) when scaling up the number of the processors
-in the grid: in average, the GMRES (resp. Multisplitting) algorithm performs
-$40\%$ better (resp. $48\%$) when running from 2x16=32 to 8x8=64 processors. \RC{pas très clair, c'est pas précis de dire qu'un algo perform mieux qu'un autre, selon quel critère?}
+in the grid: in average, the reduction of the execution time for GMRES (resp. Multisplitting) algorithm is around $40\%$ (resp. around $48\%$) when running from 32 (grid 2 $\times$ 16) to 64 processors (grid 8 $\times$ 8) processors. \RC{pas très clair, c'est pas précis de dire qu'un algo perform mieux qu'un autre, selon quel critère?}
\subsubsection{Running on two different inter-clusters network speeds \\}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 2x16, 4x8\\ %\hline
- Network & N1 : bw=10Gbs-lat=8.10$^{-6}$ \\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 16, 4 $\times$ 8\\ %\hline
+ Inter Networks & N1 : bw=10Gbs-lat=8.10$^{-6}$ \\ %\hline
- & N2 : bw=1Gbs-lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x} \times N_{y} \times N_{z} =150 \times 150 \times 150$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
-\caption{Test conditions: grid 2x16 and 4x8 with networks N1 vs N2}
+\caption{Test conditions: grid 2 $\times$ 16 and 4 $\times$ 8 with networks N1 vs N2}
\label{tab:02}
\end{center}
\end{table}
-These experiments compare the behavior of the algorithms running first on a
-speed inter-cluster network (N1) and also on a less performant network (N2). \RC{Il faut définir cela avant...}
+In this section, the experiments compare the behavior of the algorithms running on a
+speeder inter-cluster network (N1) and also on a less performant network (N2) respectively defined in the test conditions Table~\ref{tab:02}. \RC{Il faut définir cela avant...}
Figure~\ref{fig:02} shows that end users will reduce the execution time
-for both algorithms when using a grid architecture like 4x16 or 8x8: the reduction is about $2$. The results depict also that when
+for both algorithms when using a grid architecture like 4 $\times$ 16 or 8 $\times$ 8: the reduction is about $2$. The results depict also that when
the network speed drops down (variation of 12.5\%), the difference between the two Multisplitting algorithms execution times can reach more than 25\%.
-%\RC{c'est pas clair : la différence entre quoi et quoi?}
-%\DL{pas clair}
-%\RCE{Modifie}
+
%\begin{wrapfigure}{l}{100mm}
\begin{figure} [ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=100mm]{cluster_x_nodes_n1_x_n2.pdf}
-\caption{Grid 2x16 and 4x8 with networks N1 vs N2
+\caption{Grid 2 $\times$ 16 and 4 $\times$ 8 with networks N1 vs N2
\AG{\np{8E-6}, \np{5E-6} au lieu de 8E-6, 5E-6}}
\label{fig:02}
\end{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 16\\ %\hline
Network & N1 : bw=1Gbs \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x} \times N_{y} \times N_{z} = 150 \times 150 \times 150$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test conditions: network latency impacts}
\label{tab:03}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 16\\ %\hline
Network & N1 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ x N$_{y}$ x N$_{z}$ =150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline \\
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x} \times N_{y} \times N_{z} =150 \times 150 \times 150$\\ \hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test conditions: Network bandwidth impacts\RC{Qu'est ce qui varie ici? Il n'y a pas de variation dans le tableau}}
\label{tab:04}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 4x8\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 4 $\times$ 8\\ %\hline
Network & N2 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = From 40 to 200\\ \hline
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x}$ = From 40 to 200\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test conditions: Input matrix size impacts}
\label{tab:05}
These findings may help a lot end users to setup the best and the optimal
targeted environment for the application deployment when focusing on the problem
size scale up. It should be noticed that the same test has been done with the
-grid 2x16 leading to the same conclusion.
+grid 2 $\times$ 16 leading to the same conclusion.
\subsubsection{CPU Power impacts on performance}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid architecture & 2x16\\ %\hline
+ Grid architecture & 2 $\times$ 16\\ %\hline
Network & N2 : bw=1Gbs - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = 150 x 150 x 150\\ \hline
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x} = 150 \times 150 \times 150$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test conditions: CPU Power impacts}
\label{tab:06}
from $1$ to $19$ GFlops. The outputs depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:06} confirm the
performance gain, around $95\%$ for both of the two methods, after adding more
powerful CPU.
+\ \\
+%\DL{il faut une conclusion sur ces tests : ils confirment les résultats déjà
+%obtenus en grandeur réelle. Donc c'est une aide précieuse pour les dev. Pas
+%besoin de déployer sur une archi réelle}
-\DL{il faut une conclusion sur ces tests : ils confirment les résultats déjà
-obtenus en grandeur réelle. Donc c'est une aide précieuse pour les dev. Pas
-besoin de déployer sur une archi réelle}
+To conclude these series of experiments, with SimGrid we have been able to make
+many simulations with many parameters variations. Doing all these experiments
+with a real platform is most of the time not possible. Moreover the behavior of
+both GMRES and Krylov multisplitting methods is in accordance with larger real
+executions on large scale supercomputer~\cite{couturier15}.
\subsection{Comparing GMRES in native synchronous mode and the multisplitting algorithm in asynchronous mode}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r c }
\hline
- Grid Architecture & 2x50 totaling 100 processors\\ %\hline
+ Grid Architecture & 2 $\times$ 50 totaling 100 processors\\ %\hline
Processors Power & 1 GFlops to 1.5 GFlops\\
Intra-Network & bw=1.25 Gbits - lat=5.10$^{-5}$ \\ %\hline
Inter-Network & bw=5 Mbits - lat=2.10$^{-2}$\\
- Input matrix size & N$_{x}$ = From 62 to 150\\ %\hline
+ Input matrix size & $N_{x}$ = From 62 to 150\\ %\hline
Residual error precision & 10$^{-5}$ to 10$^{-9}$\\ \hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Test conditions: GMRES in synchronous mode vs Krylov Multisplitting in asynchronous mode}
parameters as the CPU power, the network parameters (bandwidth and latency)
and with different problem size. The relative gains greater than $1$ between the
two algorithms have been captured after each step of the test. In
-Figure~\ref{fig:07} are reported the best grid configurations allowing
+Table~\ref{tab:08} are reported the best grid configurations allowing
the multisplitting method to be more than $2.5$ times faster than the
classical GMRES. These experiments also show the relative tolerance of the
multisplitting algorithm when using a low speed network as usually observed with
\end{tabular}}
-\begin{figure}[!t]
+\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
%\begin{table}
% \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES}
\hline
\end{mytable}
%\end{table}
- \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES
-\AG{C'est un tableau, pas une figure}}
- \label{fig:07}
-\end{figure}
+ \caption{Relative gain of the multisplitting algorithm compared with the classical GMRES}
+ \label{tab:08}
+\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
-CONCLUSION
+
+In this paper we have presented the simulation of the execution of three
+different parallel solvers on some multi-core architectures. We have show that
+the SimGrid toolkit is an interesting simulation tool that has allowed us to
+determine which method to choose given a specified multi-core architecture.
+Moreover the simulated results are in accordance (i.e. with the same order of
+magnitude) with the works presented in~\cite{couturier15}. Simulated results
+also confirm the efficiency of the asynchronous multisplitting
+algorithm compared to the synchronous GMRES especially in case of
+geographically distant clusters.
+
+These results are important since it is very time consuming to find optimal
+configuration and deployment requirements for a given application on a given
+multi-core architecture. Finding good resource allocations policies under
+varying CPU power, network speeds and loads is very challenging and labor
+intensive. This problematic is even more difficult for the asynchronous
+scheme where a small parameter variation of the execution platform and of the
+application data can lead to very different numbers of iterations to reach the
+converge and so to very different execution times.
+
+
+In future works, we plan to investigate how to simulate the behavior of really
+large scale applications. For example, if we are interested to simulate the
+execution of the solvers of this paper with thousand or even dozens of thousands
+or core, it is not possible to do that with SimGrid. In fact, this tool will
+make the real computation. So we plan to focus our research on that problematic.
+
%\section*{Acknowledgment}
