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

skip to main content
article
Free access

Relaxed consistency and coherence granularity in DSM systems: a performance evaluation

Published: 21 June 1997 Publication History

Abstract

During the past few years, two main approaches have been taken to improve the performance of software shared memory implementations: relaxing consistency models and providing fine-grained access control. Their performance tradeoffs, however, we not well understood. This paper studies these tradeoffs on a platform that provides access control in hardware but runs coherence protocols in software, We compare the performance of three protocols across four coherence granularities, using 12 applications on a 16-node cluster of workstations. Our results show that no single combination of protocol and granularity performs best for all the applications. The combination of a sequentially consistent (SC) protocol and fine granularity works well with 7 of the 12 applications. The combination of a multiple-writer, home-based lazy release consistency (HLRC) protocol and page granularity works well with 8 out of the 12 applications. For applications that suffer performance losses in moving to coarser granularity under sequential consistency, the performance can usually be regained quite effectively using relaxed protocols, particularly HLRC. We also find that the HLRC protocol performs substantially better than a single-writer lazy release consistent (SW-LRC) protocol at coase granularity for many irregular applications. For our applications and platform, when we use the original versions of the applications ported directly from hardware-coherent shared memory, we find that the SC protocol with 256-byte granularity performs best on average. However, when the best versions of the applications are compared, the balance shifts in favor of HLRC at page granularity.

References

[1]
J.K. Bennett, J.B. Carter, and W. Zwaenepoel. Adaptive Software Cache Management for Distributed Shared Memory Architectures. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 125-134, May 1990.]]
[2]
B.N. Bershad, M.J. Zekauskas, and W.A. Sawdon. The Midway Distributed Shared Memory System. in Proceedings of the IEEE COMPCON '93 Conference, February 1993.]]
[3]
Nanette J. Boden, Danny Cohen, Robert E. Felderman, Alan E. Kulawik, Charles L. Seitz, Jakov N. Seizovic, and Wen-King Su. Myrinet: A Gigabit-per-Second Local Area Network. IEEE Micro, 15(1):29-36, February 1995.]]
[4]
L. Borrmann and M. tierdieckerhoff. A Coherency Model for Virtual Shared Memory. In Proceedings of the l Oth International Parallel Processing Symposium, June 1990.]]
[5]
J.B. Carter, J.K. Bennett, and W. Zwaenepoel. Implementation and Performance of Munin. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 152-164, October 1991.]]
[6]
David Culler, Lok Tin Liu, Richard Martin, and Chad Yoshikawa. LogP Performance Assessment of Fast Network Interfaces. IEEE Micro, pages 35-43, February 1996.]]
[7]
David Culler, Lok Tin Liu, Richard Martin, and Chad Yoshil#wa. LogP Performance Assessment of Fast Network Interfaces. IEEE Micro, pages 35-43, February 1996.]]
[8]
M. Dubois, J.C. Wang, L.A. Barroso, K. Lee, and Y-S Chen. Delayed Consistency and Its Effects on the Miss Rate of Parallel Programs. In Supercompu#ing '91, pages 197-206, 1991.]]
[9]
A. Erlichson, N. Nuckolls, G. Chesson, and J. Hennessy. Soft- FLASH: Analyzing the Performance of Clustered Distributed Virtual Shared Memory. In The 6th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, October 1996.]]
[10]
K. Gharachorloo, D. Lenoski, J. Laudon, P. Gibbons, A. Gupta, and J. Hennessy. Memory Consistency and Event Ordering in Scalable Shared-Memory Multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 15-26, May 1990.]]
[11]
L. Iftode, C. Dubnicki, E. W. Felten, and Kai Li. Improving Release-Consistent Shared Virtual Memory using Automatic Update. In The 2nd IEEE Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, February 1996.]]
[12]
L. Iftode, J. P. Singh, and Kai Li. Understanding Application Performance on Shared Virtual Memory. in Proceedings of the Z3rd Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, May 1996.]]
[13]
L. lftode, J.P. Singh, and K. Li. Scope Consistency: a Bridge Between Release Consistency and Entry Consistency. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual A CM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, June 1996.]]
[14]
P. Keleher, A.L. Cox, S. Dwarkadas, and W. Zwaenepoel. TreadMarks: Distributed Shared Memory on Standard Workstations and Operating Systems. In Proceedings of the Winter USENIX Conference, pages 115-132, January 1994.]]
[15]
P. Keleher, A.L. Cox, and W. Zwaenepoel. Lazy Consistency for Software Distributed Shared Memory. In Proceedings of the i gth Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 13-21, May 1992.]]
[16]
P.J. Keleher. The Relative Importance of Concurrent Writers and Weak Consistency Models. in Proceedings of the IEEE COMPCON '96 Conference, February 1996.]]
[17]
L. Lamport. How to Make a Multiprocessor Computer That Correctly Executes Multiprocessor Programs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-28(9):690--691, 1979.]]
[18]
Daniel Lenoski, James Laudon, Kourosh Gharachorloo, Wolf-Dietrich Weber, Anoop Gupta, John Hennessy, Mark Horowitz, and Monica Lain. The Stanford DASH Multiprocessor. IEEE Computer, 25(3):63-79, March 1992.]]
[19]
K. Li. IVY: A Shared Virtual Memory System for Parallel Computing. In Proceedings of the 1988 International Con- }erence on Parallel Processing, volume II Software, pages 94-101, August 1988.]]
[20]
K. Li and P. Hudak. Memory Coherence in Shared Virtual Memory Systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual A CM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 229-239, August 1986.]]
[21]
Scott Pakin, Mario Laura, and Andrew Chien. High Performance Messaging on Workstations: Illinois Fast Messages (FM) for Myrinet. In Proceedings o,f Supercomputing '95, 1995.]]
[22]
Robert W. Pfile. Typhoon-Zero Implementation: The Vortex Module. Technical report, Wisconsin University, CS department, 1995.]]
[23]
S. K. Reinhard, R. W. Pfile, and D. A. Wood. Decoupled Hardware Support for Distributed Shared Memory. In Proceedings of the P3rd Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, May 1996.]]
[24]
S.K. Reinhardt, J.R. Larus, and D.A. Wood. Tempest and Typhoon: User-Level Shared Memory. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 325-336, April 1994.]]
[25]
I#OSS Technology, Inc. SPARC RISC User's Guide: hyper- SPARC Edition, September 1993.]]
[26]
D.J. Scales, K. Gharachorloo, and C.A. Thekkath. Shasta: A Low Overhead, SOftware-Only Approach for Supporting Fine-Grain Shared Memory. In The 6th International Conference on Architectural Support .for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, October 1996.]]
[27]
I. Schoinas, B. Falsafi, A.R. Lebeck, S.K. Reinhardt, J.R. Larus, and D.A. Wood. Fine-grain Access for Distributed Shared Memory. In The 6th International Conference on Architectural Support,for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 297-306, October 1994.]]
[28]
Ioannis Schoinas, Babak Falsafi, Mark D. Hill, James R. Larus, Christopher E. Lucas, Shubhendu S. Mukherjee, Steven K. Reinhardt, Eric Schnarr, and David A. Wood. Implementing Fine-Grain Distributed Shared Memory On Commodity SMP Workstations. Technical Report 1307, March 1996.]]
[29]
W. Weber and A. Gupta. Analysis of Cache Invalidation Patterns in Multiprocessors. In The Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 243-256, April 1989.]]
[30]
Y. Zhou, L. Iftode, and K. Li. Performance Evaluation of Two Home-Based Lazy Release Consistency Protocols for Shared Virtual Memory Systems. In Proceedings of the Operating Systems Design and Implementation Symposium, October 1996.]]

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGPLAN Notices
ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 32, Issue 7
July 1997
287 pages
ISSN:0362-1340
EISSN:1558-1160
DOI:10.1145/263767
Issue’s Table of Contents
  • cover image ACM Conferences
    PPOPP '97: Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming
    June 1997
    287 pages
    ISBN:0897919068
    DOI:10.1145/263764
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]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 June 1997
Published in SIGPLAN Volume 32, Issue 7

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)93
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 21 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Providing scalable single‐operating‐system NUMA abstraction of physically discrete resourcesETRI Journal10.4218/etrij.2023-0056Online publication date: 16-Jan-2024
  • (2015)Cloud Storage over Multiple Data CentersHandbook on Data Centers10.1007/978-1-4939-2092-1_24(691-725)Online publication date: 17-Mar-2015
  • (2014)ASPIREACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/2714064.266022749:10(861-878)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2014
  • (2013)ProtozoaProceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture10.1145/2485922.2485969(547-558)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2013
  • (2005)Software Distributed Shared Memory: a VIA-based implementation and comparison of sequential consistency with home-based lazy release consistencySoftware: Practice and Experience10.1002/spe.65635:8(755-786)Online publication date: 2005
  • (2020)DeX: Scaling Applications Beyond Machine Boundaries2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS)10.1109/ICDCS47774.2020.00021(864-876)Online publication date: Nov-2020
  • (2017)Cross-Platform App Recommendation by Jointly Modeling Ratings and TextsACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/301742935:4(1-27)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2017
  • (2017)Deriving User Preferences of Mobile Apps from Their Management ActivitiesACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/301546235:4(1-32)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2017
  • (2014)ASPIREACM SIGPLAN Notices10.1145/2714064.266022749:10(861-878)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2014
  • (2014)ASPIREProceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages & Applications10.1145/2660193.2660227(861-878)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2014
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media