- \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
+\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
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 developpers to better tune their applications for a given multi-core
+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. For each algorithm we have simulated
+%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.
+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.
\end{abstract}
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 application 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 given a specified 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 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
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}
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
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}
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}
