Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2612669.2612699acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hierarchical graph partitioning

Published: 21 June 2014 Publication History

Abstract

One of the important optimization questions in highly parallel systems is the problem of assigning computational resources to communicating tasks. While scheduling tasks/operators, tasks assigned to nearby resources (e.g. on the same CPU core) have low communication costs, whereas tasks assigned to distant resources (e.g. on different server racks) have high communication costs. An optimal solution of task to resource assignment minimizes the communication cost of the task ensemble while satisfying the load balancing requirements. We model such an optimization question of minimizing communication cost as a new class of graph partitioning problems called hierarchical graph partitioning.
In hierarchical graph partitioning we are given a graph G=(V,E), vertices representing the tasks and edges representing the communication among the vertices. We are also given vertex demands d: V(G) → R+ denoting the processing load of each task and edge weights w: E(G) → R+ denoting the amount of communication and our goal is to decompose G into k parts/servers of nearly equal weight (for load balancing) and minimize the total cost of the edges being cut (communication cost). However, unlike traditional k-balanced graph partitioning where the cost of an edge cut is independent of the parts containing the two respective end vertices, here the cost varies with the distance of the servers corresponding to the two parts. Since, the servers are generally arranged in a hierarchy, distance is given by a tree metric. In this paper, we initiate the study of hierarchical graph partitioning problem and give efficient algorithms with approximation guarantee. Hierarchical graph partitioning is a significant generalization of graph partitioning problem and faithfully captures several practical scenarios that have served as major motivating applications for graph partitioning.

References

[1]
K. Andreev and H. Räcke. Balanced graph partitioning. In SPAA, pages 120--124, 2004.
[2]
M. Andrews, M.T. Hajiaghayi, H. Karloff, and A. Moitra. Capacitated metric labeling. In SODA, pages 976--995, 2011.
[3]
S. Arora, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani. Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. J. ACM, 56(2):5:1--5:37, 2009.
[4]
Siew Yin Chan, Teck Chaw Ling, and Eric Aubanel. The impact of heterogeneous multi-core clusters on graph partitioning: an empirical study. Cluster Computing, 15(3):281--302, 2012.
[5]
S. Chawla, R. Krauthgamer, R. Kumar, Y. Rabani, and D. Sivakumar. On the hardness of approximating multicut and sparsest-cut. Comput. Complex., 15(2):94--114, 2006.
[6]
Jian Chen and Valerie E Taylor. Parapart: parallel mesh partitioning tool for distributed systems. Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 12(2--3):111--123, 2000.
[7]
Karen Devine, Erik Boman, Robert Heaphy, Bruce Hendrickson, and Courtenay Vaughan. Zoltan data management services for parallel dynamic applications. Computing in Science & Engineering, 4(2):90--96, 2002.
[8]
Guy Even, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, Satish Rao, and Baruch Schieber. Fast approximate graph partitioning algorithms. In SODA, pages 639--648, 1997.
[9]
Uriel Feige and Robert Krauthgamer. A polylogarithmic approximation of the minimum bisection. SIAM J. Comput., 31 (4):1090--1118, 2002.
[10]
Andreas Emil Feldmann and Luca Foschini. Balanced Partitions of Trees and Applications. In STACS, volume 14, pages 100--111, 2012.
[11]
Bugra Gedik, Henrique Andrade, Kun-LungWu, Philip S. Yu, and Myungcheol Doo. Spade: the system s declarative stream processing engine. In SIGMOD, pages 1123--1134, 2008.
[12]
Lukasz Golab and Theodore Johnson. Data stream warehousing. In SIGMOD, pages 949--952, 2013.
[13]
Dorit s. Hochbaum and David B. Shmoys. A polynomial approximation scheme for scheduling on uniform processors: Using the dual approximation approach. SIAM J. Comput., 17(3):539--551, 1988.
[14]
Subhash A. Khot and Nisheeth K. Vishnoi. The unique games conjecture, integrality gap for cut problems and embeddability of negative type metrics into ' 1. In FOCS, pages 53--62, 2005.
[15]
Jon Kleinberg and Éva Tardos. Approximation algorithms for classification problems with pairwise relationships: metric labeling and markov random fields. J. ACM, 49(5):616--639, 2002.
[16]
Robert Krauthgamer and Yuval Rabani. Improved lower bounds for embeddings into l1. In SODA, pages 1010--1017, 2006.
[17]
Robert Krauthgamer, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, and Roy Schwartz. Partitioning graphs into balanced components. In SODA, pages 942--949, 2009.
[18]
T. Leighton, F. Makedon, and S. Tragoudas. Approximation algorithms for vlsi partition problems. In IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pages 2865--2868 vol.4, 1990.
[19]
Tom Leighton and Satish Rao. Multicommodity max-flow min-cut theorems and their use in designing approximation algorithms. J. ACM, 46(6):787--832, November 1999.
[20]
Irene Moulitsas and George Karypis. Architecture aware partitioning algorithms. Springer, 2008.
[21]
J.S. Naor and R. Schwartz. Balanced metric labeling. In STOC, pages 582--591. ACM, 2005.
[22]
François Pellegrini. Static mapping by dual recursive bipartitioning of process architecture graphs. In Scalable High- Performance Computing Conference, 1994., Proceedings of the, pages 486--493. IEEE, 1994.
[23]
François Pellegrini and Jean Roman. Scotch: A software package for static mapping by dual recursive bipartitioning of process and architecture graphs. In High-Performance Computing and Networking, pages 493--498. Springer, 1996.
[24]
H. Räcke. Optimal hierarchical decompositions for congestion minimization in networks. In STOC, pages 255--264. ACM, 2008.
[25]
Horst D. Simon and Shang-Hua Teng. How good is recursive bisection? SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 18(5):1436--1445, 1997.
[26]
James D Teresco, Jamal Faik, and Joseph E Flaherty. Hierarchical partitioning and dynamic load balancing for scientific computation. In Applied Parallel Computing. State of the Art in Scientific Computing, pages 911--920. Springer, 2006.
[27]
Jesper Larsson Traff. Implementing the mpi process topology mechanism. In Supercomputing, ACM/IEEE 2002 Conference, pages 28--28. IEEE, 2002.
[28]
Chris Walshaw and Mark Cross. Parallel optimisation algorithms for multilevel mesh partitioning. Parallel Computing, 26(12):1635--1660, 2000.
[29]
ChrisWalshaw and Mark Cross. Multilevel mesh partitioning for heterogeneous communication networks. Future generation computer systems, 17(5):601--623, 2001.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Efficient Multi-Processor Scheduling in Increasingly Realistic ModelsProceedings of the 36th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures10.1145/3626183.3659972(463-474)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Graph Partitioning Algorithms: A Comparative StudyITNG 2024: 21st International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations10.1007/978-3-031-56599-1_65(513-520)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
  • (2023)Partitioning Hypergraphs is Hard: Models, Inapproximability, and ApplicationsProceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures10.1145/3558481.3591087(415-425)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SPAA '14: Proceedings of the 26th ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures
June 2014
356 pages
ISBN:9781450328210
DOI:10.1145/2612669
  • General Chair:
  • Guy Blelloch,
  • Program Chair:
  • Peter Sanders
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 June 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. approximation algorithms
  2. graph partitioning

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SPAA '14

Acceptance Rates

SPAA '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 122 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 447 of 1,461 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)21
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Efficient Multi-Processor Scheduling in Increasingly Realistic ModelsProceedings of the 36th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures10.1145/3626183.3659972(463-474)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Graph Partitioning Algorithms: A Comparative StudyITNG 2024: 21st International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations10.1007/978-3-031-56599-1_65(513-520)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
  • (2023)Partitioning Hypergraphs is Hard: Models, Inapproximability, and ApplicationsProceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures10.1145/3558481.3591087(415-425)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2023
  • (2020)A novel quadruple generative adversarial network for semi-supervised categorization of low-resolution imagesNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2020.05.050415(266-285)Online publication date: Nov-2020
  • (2018)Runtime Support for Distributed Dynamic LocalityEuro-Par 2017: Parallel Processing Workshops10.1007/978-3-319-75178-8_14(167-178)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2018

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media