1. Field of the Invention
The field of the invention is data processing, or, more specifically, methods, apparatus, and products for collective operation protocol selection in a parallel computer.
2. Description of Related Art
The development of the EDVAC computer system of 1948 is often cited as the beginning of the computer era. Since that time, computer systems have evolved into extremely complicated devices. Today's computers are much more sophisticated than early systems such as the EDVAC. Computer systems typically include a combination of hardware and software components, application programs, operating systems, processors, buses, memory, input/output devices, and so on. As advances in semiconductor processing and computer architecture push the performance of the computer higher and higher, more sophisticated computer software has evolved to take advantage of the higher performance of the hardware, resulting in computer systems today that are much more powerful than just a few years ago.
Parallel computing is an area of computer technology that has experienced advances. Parallel computing is the simultaneous execution of the same task (split up and specially adapted) on multiple processors in order to obtain results faster. Parallel computing is based on the fact that the process of solving a problem usually can be divided into smaller tasks, which may be carried out simultaneously with some coordination.
Parallel computers execute parallel algorithms. A parallel algorithm can be split up to be executed a piece at a time on many different processing devices, and then put back together again at the end to get a data processing result. Some algorithms are easy to divide up into pieces. Splitting up the job of checking all of the numbers from one to a hundred thousand to see which are primes could be done, for example, by assigning a subset of the numbers to each available processor, and then putting the list of positive results back together. In this specification, the multiple processing devices that execute the individual pieces of a parallel program are referred to as ‘compute nodes.’ A parallel computer is composed of compute nodes and other processing nodes as well, including, for example, input/output (‘I/O’) nodes, and service nodes.
Parallel algorithms are valuable because it is faster to perform some kinds of large computing tasks via a parallel algorithm than it is via a serial (non-parallel) algorithm, because of the way modern processors work. It is far more difficult to construct a computer with a single fast processor than one with many slow processors with the same throughput. There are also certain theoretical limits to the potential speed of serial processors. On the other hand, every parallel algorithm has a serial part and so parallel algorithms have a saturation point. After that point adding more processors does not yield any more throughput but only increases the overhead and cost.
Parallel algorithms are designed also to optimize one more resource the data communications requirements among the nodes of a parallel computer. There are two ways parallel processors communicate, shared memory or message passing. Shared memory processing needs additional locking for the data and imposes the overhead of additional processor and bus cycles and also serializes some portion of the algorithm.
Message passing processing uses high-speed data communications networks and message buffers, but this communication adds transfer overhead on the data communications networks as well as additional memory need for message buffers and latency in the data communications among nodes. Designs of parallel computers use specially designed data communications links so that the communication overhead will be small but it is the parallel algorithm that decides the volume of the traffic.
Many data communications network architectures are used for message passing among nodes in parallel computers. Compute nodes may be organized in a network as a ‘torus’ or ‘mesh,’ for example. Also, compute nodes may be organized in a network as a tree. A torus network connects the nodes in a three-dimensional mesh with wrap around links. Every node is connected to its six neighbors through this torus network, and each node is addressed by its x,y,z coordinate in the mesh. In such a manner, a torus network lends itself to point to point operations. In a tree network, the nodes typically are connected into a binary tree: each node has a parent, and two children (although some nodes may only have zero children or one child, depending on the hardware configuration). Although a tree network typically is inefficient in point to point communication, a tree network does provide high bandwidth and low latency for certain collective operations, message passing operations where all compute nodes participate simultaneously, such as, for example, an allgather operation. In computers that use a torus and a tree network, the two networks typically are implemented independently of one another, with separate routing circuits, separate physical links, and separate message buffers.
Compute nodes in a parallel computer may also be organized into an operational group to carry out collective parallel operations. Collective operations are implemented with data communications among the compute nodes of an operational group. Collective operations are those functions that involve all the compute nodes of an operational group. A collective operation is an operation, a message-passing computer program instruction that is executed simultaneously, that is, at approximately the same time, by all the compute nodes in an operational group of compute nodes. A ‘broadcast’ is an example of a collective operation for moving data among compute nodes of an operational group. A ‘reduce’ operation is an example of a collective operation that executes arithmetic or logical functions on data distributed among the compute nodes of an operational group. Protocols for collective operations may tuned or optimized for particular operating parameters—parameters within which the collective operation executes. Examples of such parameters may be a type of logical, or arithmetic function to execute, data types, data size, number of nodes, and the like. Collective operation protocols may optimized with respect to particular sets of operating parameters in that the protocols may be more efficient than other protocols, consume less power during execution than other protocols, utilize fewer resources that other protocols, executed more quickly than other protocols, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art. Increasing accuracy of selecting an optimized protocol for collective operations, therefore, may be beneficial to data processing in a parallel computing system.
Methods, apparatus, and products for collective operation protocol selection in a parallel computer are described in this specification. The parallel computer includes a number of compute nodes. Such collective operation protocol selection includes: calling a collective operation with one or more operating parameters, selecting one of a number of protocols for executing the collective operation, and executing the collective operation with the selected protocol. In embodiments of the present invention, selecting one of the protocols is carried out iteratively, for each protocol beginning with a first prospective protocol until a prospective protocol meets predetermined performance criteria and includes: providing, to a protocol performance function for the prospective protocol, the operating parameters of the collective operation; determining, by the performance function, whether the prospective protocol meets predefined performance criteria for the operating parameters, including evaluating, with the operating parameters, a predefined performance fit equation for the prospective protocol and calculating a measure of performance of the prospective protocol for the operating parameters; and determining that the prospective protocol meets predetermined performance criteria and selecting the prospective protocol as the protocol for executing the collective operation only if the calculated measure of performance is greater than a predefined minimum performance threshold.
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following more particular descriptions of exemplary embodiments of the invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings wherein like reference numbers generally represent like parts of exemplary embodiments of the invention.
Exemplary methods, apparatus, and products for collective operation protocol selection in a parallel computer in accordance with the present invention are described with reference to the accompanying drawings, beginning with
The parallel computer (100) in the example of
The compute nodes (102) of the parallel computer (100) are organized into at least one operational group (132) of compute nodes for collective parallel operations on the parallel computer (100). Each operational group (132) of compute nodes is the set of compute nodes upon which a collective parallel operation executes. Each compute node in the operational group (132) is assigned a unique rank that identifies the particular compute node in the operational group (132). Collective operations are implemented with data communications among the compute nodes of an operational group. Collective operations are those functions that involve all the compute nodes of an operational group (132). A collective operation is an operation, a message-passing computer program instruction that is executed simultaneously, that is, at approximately the same time, by all the compute nodes in an operational group (132) of compute nodes. Such an operational group (132) may include all the compute nodes (102) in a parallel computer (100) or a subset all the compute nodes (102). Collective operations are often built around point-to-point operations. A collective operation requires that all processes on all compute nodes within an operational group (132) call the same collective operation with matching arguments. A ‘broadcast’ is an example of a collective operation for moving data among compute nodes of an operational group. A ‘reduce’ operation is an example of a collective operation that executes arithmetic or logical functions on data distributed among the compute nodes of an operational group (132). An operational group (132) may be implemented as, for example, an MPI ‘communicator.’
‘MPI’ refers to ‘Message Passing Interface,’ a prior art parallel communications library, a module of computer program instructions for data communications on parallel computers. Examples of prior-art parallel communications libraries that may be improved for use in systems configured according to embodiments of the present invention include MPI and the ‘Parallel Virtual Machine’ (‘PVM’) library. PVM was developed by the University of Tennessee, The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Emory University. MPI is promulgated by the MPI Forum, an open group with representatives from many organizations that define and maintain the MPI standard. MPI at the time of this writing is a de facto standard for communication among compute nodes running a parallel program on a distributed memory parallel computer. This specification sometimes uses MPI terminology for ease of explanation, although the use of MPI as such is not a requirement or limitation of the present invention.
Some collective operations have a single originating or receiving process running on a particular compute node in an operational group (132). For example, in a ‘broadcast’ collective operation, the process on the compute node that distributes the data to all the other compute nodes is an originating process. In a ‘gather’ operation, for example, the process on the compute node that received all the data from the other compute nodes is a receiving process. The compute node on which such an originating or receiving process runs is referred to as a logical root.
Most collective operations are variations or combinations of four basic operations: broadcast, gather, scatter, and reduce. The interfaces for these collective operations are defined in the MPI standards promulgated by the MPI Forum. Algorithms for executing collective operations, however, are not defined in the MPI standards. In a broadcast operation, all processes specify the same root process, whose buffer contents will be sent. Processes other than the root specify receive buffers. After the operation, all buffers contain the message from the root process.
A scatter operation, like the broadcast operation, is also a one-to-many collective operation. In a scatter operation, the logical root divides data on the root into segments and distributes a different segment to each compute node in the operational group (132). In scatter operation, all processes typically specify the same receive count. The send arguments are only significant to the root process, whose buffer actually contains sendcount*N elements of a given datatype, where N is the number of processes in the given group of compute nodes. The send buffer is divided and dispersed to all processes (including the process on the logical root). Each compute node is assigned a sequential identifier termed a ‘rank.’ After the operation, the root has sent sendcount data elements to each process in increasing rank order. Rank 0 receives the first sendcount data elements from the send buffer. Rank 1 receives the second sendcount data elements from the send buffer, and so on.
A gather operation is a many-to-one collective operation that is a complete reverse of the description of the scatter operation. That is, a gather is a many-to-one collective operation in which elements of a datatype are gathered from the ranked compute nodes into a receive buffer in a root node.
A reduction operation is also a many-to-one collective operation that includes an arithmetic or logical function performed on two data elements. All processes specify the same ‘count’ and the same arithmetic or logical function. After the reduction, all processes have sent count data elements from compute node send buffers to the root process. In a reduction operation, data elements from corresponding send buffer locations are combined pair-wise by arithmetic or logical operations to yield a single corresponding element in the root process' receive buffer. Application specific reduction operations can be defined at runtime. Parallel communications libraries may support predefined operations. MPI, for example, provides the following predefined reduction operations:
In addition to compute nodes, the parallel computer (100) includes input/output (‘I/O’) nodes (110, 114) coupled to compute nodes (102) through the global combining network (106). The compute nodes (102) in the parallel computer (100) may be partitioned into processing sets such that each compute node in a processing set is connected for data communications to the same I/O node. Each processing set, therefore, is composed of one I/O node and a subset of compute nodes (102). The ratio between the number of compute nodes to the number of I/O nodes in the entire system typically depends on the hardware configuration for the parallel computer (102). For example, in some configurations, each processing set may be composed of eight compute nodes and one I/O node. In some other configurations, each processing set may be composed of sixty-four compute nodes and one I/O node.
Such example are for explanation only, however, and not for limitation. Each I/O node provides I/O services between compute nodes (102) of its processing set and a set of I/O devices. In the example of
The parallel computer (100) of
The parallel computer (100) of
Compute node (102a) includes a rank (212)—a process in an MPI communicator, the operational group (132). The rank (212), calls a collective operation (220) with one or more operating parameters (214). Operating parameters as the term is used in this specification may be any parameter passed to a collective operation for purposes of executing that collective operation. Examples of such operating parameters include message size, data type, number and identifier of target nodes, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art.
The collective operation (220)—some other module of computer program instructions not shown here—may then select one of a number of protocols (222) for executing the collective operation. Such a selection is carried out iteratively in accordance with embodiments of the present invention, for each protocol (222) beginning with a first prospective protocol until a prospective protocol meets predetermined performance criteria. Predetermined performance criteria is any value that may be predetermined to represent an acceptable level of ‘performance.’ Examples of various performance criteria types include speed of execution, number of resources utilized in execution, and so on as will occur to readers of skill in the art.
Each iteration of protocol selection includes: providing, to a protocol performance function (228) for the prospective protocol, the operating parameters (214) of the collective operation and determining, by the performance function (228), whether the prospective protocol (222) meets predefined performance criteria for the operating parameters. A protocol's performance function is a function, or subroutine of computer program instructions, that when executed determines whether the protocol whether the protocol, for the particular set of operating parameters, will produce an optimized performance result. In some embodiments, for example, the return from a protocol's performance function is a ‘good fit’ or ‘bad fit’ result.
In the example of
The performance function (228) may determine whether the whether the prospective protocol (222) meets predefined performance criteria for the operating parameters by evaluating, with the operating parameters (214), a predefined performance fit equation (230) for the prospective protocol, thereby calculating a measure of performance of the prospective protocol for the operating parameters. Performance of each protocol relative to operating parameter sets in the example of
During real-time protocol selection, if the calculated measure of performance (218) is greater than a predefined minimum performance threshold—the performance criteria (216) in the example of FIG. 1—the collective protocol (220) determines that the prospective protocol meets predetermined performance criteria and selects the prospective protocol as the protocol for executing the collective operation. If the calculated measure of performance (218) is not greater than a predefined minimum performance threshold, the selection process proceeds to a subsequent iteration, with another prospective protocol. Once selected, the collective operation (220) executes with the selected protocol.
The arrangement of nodes, networks, and I/O devices making up the example apparatus illustrated in
Collective operation protocol selection according to embodiments of the present invention is generally implemented on a parallel computer that includes a plurality of compute nodes organized for collective operations through at least one data communications network. In fact, such computers may include thousands of such compute nodes. Each compute node is in turn itself a kind of computer composed of one or more computer processing cores, its own computer memory, and its own input/output adapters. For further explanation, therefore,
Also stored RAM (156) is a parallel communications library (161), a library of computer program instructions that carry out parallel communications among compute nodes, including point-to-point operations as well as collective operations. A library of parallel communications routines may be developed from scratch for use in systems according to embodiments of the present invention, using a traditional programming language such as the C programming language, and using traditional programming methods to write parallel communications routines that send and receive data among nodes on two independent data communications networks. Alternatively, existing prior art libraries may be improved to operate according to embodiments of the present invention. Examples of prior-art parallel communications libraries include the ‘Message Passing Interface’ (‘MPI’) library and the ‘Parallel Virtual Machine’ (‘PVM’) library.
Also stored in ram is a rank (212), a process in an MPI communicator. The rank (212) and the parallel communications library (161), when executed, causes the compute node (102) to operate generally for collective operation protocol selection in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. The rank (212), in the example of
Also stored in RAM (156) is an operating system (162), a module of computer program instructions and routines for an application program's access to other resources of the compute node. It is typical for an application program and parallel communications library in a compute node of a parallel computer to run a single thread of execution with no user login and no security issues because the thread is entitled to complete access to all resources of the node. The quantity and complexity of tasks to be performed by an operating system on a compute node in a parallel computer therefore are smaller and less complex than those of an operating system on a serial computer with many threads running simultaneously. In addition, there is no video I/O on the compute node (102) of
The example compute node (102) of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The example compute node (102) includes multiple arithmetic logic units (‘ALUs’). Each processing core (165) includes an ALU (166), and a separate ALU (170) is dedicated to the exclusive use of the Global Combining Network Adapter (188) for use in performing the arithmetic and logical functions of reduction operations, including an allreduce operation. Computer program instructions of a reduction routine in a parallel communications library (161) may latch an instruction for an arithmetic or logical function into an instruction register (169). When the arithmetic or logical function of a reduction operation is a ‘sum’ or a ‘logical OR,’ for example, the collective operations adapter (188) may execute the arithmetic or logical operation by use of the ALU (166) in the processing core (165) or, typically much faster, by use of the dedicated ALU (170) using data provided by the nodes (190, 192) on the global combining network (106) and data provided by processing cores (165) on the compute node (102).
Often when performing arithmetic operations in the global combining network adapter (188), however, the global combining network adapter (188) only serves to combine data received from the children nodes (190) and pass the result up the network (106) to the parent node (192). Similarly, the global combining network adapter (188) may only serve to transmit data received from the parent node (192) and pass the data down the network (106) to the children nodes (190). That is, none of the processing cores (165) on the compute node (102) contribute data that alters the output of ALU (170), which is then passed up or down the global combining network (106). Because the ALU (170) typically does not output any data onto the network (106) until the ALU (170) receives input from one of the processing cores (165), a processing core (165) may inject the identity element into the dedicated ALU (170) for the particular arithmetic operation being perform in the ALU (170) in order to prevent alteration of the output of the ALU (170). Injecting the identity element into the ALU, however, often consumes numerous processing cycles. To further enhance performance in such cases, the example compute node (102) includes dedicated hardware (171) for injecting identity elements into the ALU (170) to reduce the amount of processing core resources required to prevent alteration of the ALU output. The dedicated hardware (171) injects an identity element that corresponds to the particular arithmetic operation performed by the ALU. For example, when the global combining network adapter (188) performs a bitwise OR on the data received from the children nodes (190), dedicated hardware (171) may inject zeros into the ALU (170) to improve performance throughout the global combining network (106).
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
In the example of
For further explanation,
The method of claim 6 includes calling (602) a collective operation with one or more operating parameters. Calling (602) a collective operation with one or more operating parameters may be carried out by executing a function call to a function provided by a parallel communications library, the function representing a particular type of collective operation. Examples of collective operations include reduce operations, broadcast operations, gather operations, and the like.
Each collective operation may be carried out in a variety of ways. Each way of carrying out a collective operation is referred to as a protocol. That is, each collective operation may include a plurality of protocols, with each protocol configured to effect, or execute, the collective operation. To that end, the method of
To that end, the method of
In the example function call above, the pointer*Perf_Func_Reduce_Protocol1 is a pointer to the performance function of the first protocol of a reduce operation. Such a pointer may be stored in metadata associated with and describing the prospective protocol. The parallel communications library carrying out the selection (604) of protocol may retrieve the function pointer from the protocol's metadata to make the function call.
The parameters passed to the performance function include MsgSize—the message size of the messages being passed in the reduce operation—and MsgType—the type of message being passed during the reduce operation. In this example, MsgSize and MsgType are the same operating parameters of the collective operation itself. The return of the performance function is a Boolean value stored as a variable ‘ProtocolFit.’ A true value of ProtocolFit indicates that the protocol meets the predefined performance criteria for the collective operation and parameter set and a false value of ProtocolFit indicates that the protocol does not meet the predefined performance criteria for the collective operation and parameter set.
The performance function determines whether to return a true or false value by determining (608) whether the prospective protocol meets predefined performance criteria for the operating parameters. Predefined performance criteria may be any criteria representing a preferred minimum performance level of a particular protocol. Examples of types of performance which may be used is criteria include time of execution of the collective operation, network bandwidth utilization in effecting the collective operation, memory resource utilization in effecting the collective operation, processor resource utilization in effecting the collective operation, and so on.
A value of the predefined performance criteria may be provided to the performance function as a parameter of the function call to the performance criteria. That is, each collective operation, or each instance of each collective operation, may have a separate, different performance criteria to meet for protocol selection. Alternatively, the predefined performance criteria may be a single, globally accessible value, available to performance functions of all protocols of all collective operations.
In the method of
Determining (608) whether the prospective protocol meets predefined performance criteria for the operating parameters continues by determining (614) whether the calculated measure of performance is greater than a predefined minimum performance threshold. The predefined minimum performance threshold is a value specified by the predetermined performance criteria. That is, in most embodiments, the predetermined performance criteria is the predefined minimum performance threshold.
If the calculated measure of performance is not greater than the predefined minimum performance threshold the method of
For further explanation,
The method of
Once an operational group of compute nodes is established (704) and positive determinations of protocols of collective operations meeting performance criteria have been cached, the process for selecting (604) a protocol for executing the collective operation includes determining (710), for the operating parameters of the collective operation, whether there is a cached determination of a prospective protocol meeting the predetermined performance criteria. If there is a cached determination of a prospective protocol meeting the predetermined performance criteria, the selection (604) selects (712) the prospective protocol as the protocol for executing the collective operation, without calculating (612) a measure of performance of the prospective protocol for the operating parameter during protocol selection. That is, rather than completing iteration upon iteration of providing (606) operating parameters to a performance function, evaluating the performance function, calculating a measure of performance, and so on, the method of
For further explanation,
The method of
Readers of skill in the art will recognize that such approximations through fit equations may be useful when performance of a particular protocol is somewhat variable. By contrast, in some situations performance of a particular protocol may be known exactly. That is, the performance of some protocols may be deterministic in nature. In such an embodiment, calculating (808) a fit equation for the recorded performance measurements may include calculating an exact function for all possible operating parameters.
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable transmission medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable transmission medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable transmission medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described above with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
It will be understood from the foregoing description that modifications and changes may be made in various embodiments of the present invention without departing from its true spirit. The descriptions in this specification are for purposes of illustration only and are not to be construed in a limiting sense. The scope of the present invention is limited only by the language of the following claims.
This application is a continuation application of and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/206,116, filed on Aug. 9, 2011.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4715032 | Nilsson | Dec 1987 | A |
4843540 | Stolfo | Jun 1989 | A |
5101480 | Shin et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5105424 | Flaig et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5333279 | Dunning | Jul 1994 | A |
5377333 | Nakagoshi et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5513371 | Cypher et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5541914 | Krishnamoorthy et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5590334 | Saulpaugh et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5617538 | Heller | Apr 1997 | A |
5668815 | Gittinger et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5721828 | Frisch | Feb 1998 | A |
5822604 | Ogasawara et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5822605 | Higuchi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5826049 | Ogata et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832215 | Kato et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5864712 | Carmichael et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5875329 | Shan | Feb 1999 | A |
5878241 | Wilkinson et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5892923 | Yasuda et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5937202 | Crosetto et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5949988 | Feisullin et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5958017 | Scott et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6000024 | Maddox et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6038651 | VanHuben et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6067609 | Meeker et al. | May 2000 | A |
6076131 | Nugent | Jun 2000 | A |
6108692 | Van Seters et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6212617 | Hardwick | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6272548 | Cotter et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289424 | Stevens | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292822 | Hardwick | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6334138 | Kureya | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6473849 | Keller et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6480885 | Olivier | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6647438 | Connor et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6691101 | MacNicol et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6714552 | Cotter | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6742063 | Hellum et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6754211 | Brown | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6834301 | Hanchett | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6914606 | Amemiya et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6954806 | Yosimoto et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6982960 | Lee et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7010576 | Bae | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7073043 | Arimilli et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7133359 | Weis | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7143392 | Ii et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7171484 | Krause et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7203743 | Shah-Heydari | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7263698 | Wildhagen et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7284033 | Jhani | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7352739 | Rangarajan et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7363474 | Rodgers et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7487501 | Silvera et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496699 | Pope et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7509244 | Shakeri et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7539989 | Blackmore et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7555566 | Blumrich et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7571439 | Rabinovici et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7587516 | Bhanot et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7590983 | Neiman et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7600095 | Archer et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7613134 | Rangarajan et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7640315 | Meyer et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7664110 | Lovett et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7673011 | Archer et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7697443 | Archer et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7707366 | Tagawa | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7725329 | Kil et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7739451 | Wiedenman et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7774448 | Shah-Heydari | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7793527 | Shen | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7796527 | Archer et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7808930 | Boers et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7835378 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7853639 | Archer et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7936681 | Gong et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7948999 | Blocksome et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7974221 | Tamassia et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7984448 | Almasi et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7991857 | Berg et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8090797 | Chinta et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8131825 | Nord et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8136104 | Papakipos et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8161268 | Faraj | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8161480 | Archer et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8326943 | Chinta et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8365186 | Faraj et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8436720 | Archer et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8565089 | Archer et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
20020016901 | Carvey et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020054051 | Ladd | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065984 | Thompson et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020091819 | Melchione et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020144027 | Schmisseur | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030041173 | Hoyle | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030182376 | Smith | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030188054 | Yosimoto et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212877 | Dally et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225852 | Bae | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040034678 | Kuszmaul et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040073590 | Bhanot et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040107387 | Larsson et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050094577 | Ashwood-Smith | May 2005 | A1 |
20050135395 | Fan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165980 | Clayton et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050243711 | Alicherry et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060156312 | Supalov | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168359 | Bissessur et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060179181 | Seong | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060182137 | Zhou et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060277323 | Joublin et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282838 | Gupta et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070110063 | Tang et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070174558 | Jia et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070226686 | Beardslee et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070242611 | Archer et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070245122 | Archer et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070245163 | Lu et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070288935 | Tannenbaum et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294666 | Papakipos et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294681 | Tuck et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080022079 | Archer et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080077366 | Neuse et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080109569 | Leonard et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080127146 | Liao et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080155249 | Backof et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080177505 | Volponi | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184214 | Archer et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080201603 | Ritz et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080250325 | Feigenbaum et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263320 | Archer et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263329 | Archer et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080273543 | Blocksome et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080288949 | Bohra et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301683 | Archer et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006662 | Chen et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006663 | Archer et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006808 | Blumrich et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090019218 | Sinclair et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090019258 | Shi | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090037377 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037511 | Almasi et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090037707 | Blocksome | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090040946 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043910 | Barsness et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090052462 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055474 | Archer et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090063815 | Arimilli et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090064140 | Arimilli et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090064176 | Ohly et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090067334 | Archer et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090154486 | Archer et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090196361 | Chan et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090240838 | Berg et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090240915 | Faraj | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090245134 | Archer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090248712 | Yuan | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090259713 | Blumrich et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090292905 | Faraj | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090307467 | Faraj | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090310544 | Jain et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090319621 | Barsness et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100017420 | Archer et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023631 | Archer et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100057738 | Ianni | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082788 | Mundy | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100122268 | Jia | May 2010 | A1 |
20100185718 | Archer et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191911 | Heddes et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100274997 | Archer et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110010471 | Heidelberger et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110119673 | Bloch | May 2011 | A1 |
20110125974 | Anderson | May 2011 | A1 |
20110153908 | Schaefer et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110238950 | Archer et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110258245 | Blocksome et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110258627 | Faraj et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110267197 | Archer et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110270986 | Archer et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110289177 | Archer et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110296137 | Archer et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110296139 | Archer et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120066284 | Archer et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120117361 | Archer et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120179881 | Archer et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120197882 | Jensen | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120216021 | Archer et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120317399 | Blocksome et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120331270 | Archer et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130042088 | Archer et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130042245 | Archer et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130042254 | Archer et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130067198 | Archer et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130073603 | Archer et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130073832 | Archer et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130074098 | Archer et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130080563 | Archer et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130086358 | Archer et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130111496 | Archer et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130173675 | Archer et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130212145 | Archer et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130212558 | Archer et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130212561 | Archer et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130246533 | Archer et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130290673 | Archer et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1394314 | Jan 2003 | CN |
1 835 414 | Sep 2007 | EP |
1835414 | Sep 2007 | EP |
2000156039 | Jun 2000 | JP |
2003317487 | Nov 2003 | JP |
WO 2007057281 | May 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Specification of U.S. Appl. No. 60/271,124, filed Feb. 24, 2001, pp. 12-13, 27 and 42-43. |
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/166,183, Feb. 24, 2014, pp. 1-22. |
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/206,116, Feb. 7, 2014, pp. 1-32. |
“Swap Two Variables Using XOR”, BetterExplained.com (online), URL: http://betterexplained.com/articles/swap-two-variables-using-xor/, accessed Jan. 16, 2007, 11 pages. |
Sunggu Lee; Shin, K.G., “Interleaved all-to-all reliable broadcast on meshes and hypercubes,” Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 5, pp. 449-458, May 1994. |
Wikipedia. “Depth-First Search” May 5, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070505212029/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first—Search. |
Bruck J., et al. Efficient Algorithms for all-to-all communications in multiportmessage-passing systems, Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, Issue: 11, pp. 1143-1156, Nov. 1997. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/271,124, filed Feb. 24, 2001, pp. 12-13, 27 and 42-43. |
Office Action Dated Mar. 4, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/279,620. |
Office Action Dated Sep. 3, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/279,620. |
Office Action Dated Dec. 29, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/279,620. |
Office Action Dated Apr. 3, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/769,367. |
Office Action Dated Dec. 13, 2007 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/459,387. |
Office Action Dated Jul. 11, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/459,387. |
Office Action Dated Mar. 18, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/459,387. |
Office Action Dated Feb. 9, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/737,286. |
Sistare, et al.; Optimization of MPI collectives on clusters of large-scale SMP's, Conference on High Performance Networking and Computing, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing; 1999. |
Tanenbaum, Structured Computer Organization, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984. |
Rosenberg; Dictionarty of Computers, Information Processing & Telecommunications, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1987. |
Wikipedia—Fuzzy Logic as edited by Jeff Silvers, Aug. 1, 2011. |
Faraj, A., et al. “Automatic Generation and Tuning of MPI Collective Communication Routines”, ICS' 05, Jun. 20-22, Boston, MA, USA. pp. 393-402, ACM. |
Shrimali, G., et al., “Building Packet Buffers Using Interleaved Memories”, (Proc. Sixth Workshop High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR '05), May 2005, pp. 1-5, IEEE. |
Ong, H., et al., “Kernel-level Single System Image for Petascale Computing”, SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., Apr. 2006, pp. 50-54, vol. 40, No. 2, ACM, New York, NY, USA. |
Foster, I., et al., “Message Passing and Threads,” Sourcebook of Parallel Computing, (Month Unknown) 2003, pp. 301-317, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. URL: http://web.eecs.utk.edu/˜dongarra/WEB-PAGES/SPRING-2006/chapter10.pdf. |
Simonsson, P., “Implementation of a Distributed Shared Memory using MPI,” Chalmers University of Technology and Goteborg University, 2004, Supervised together with Anders Gidenstam, Master's Thesis, Finished Jan. 11, 2005, pp. 1-98, Goteborg, Sweden. |
Message Passing Interface Forum, “MPI: A Message-Passing Interface Standard Version 2.2”, MPI Specification, Sep. 4, 2009, pp. 1-647, High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS). |
Vetter, J., et al., “Real-Time Performance Monitoring, Adaptive Control, and Interactive Steering of Computational Grids”, International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications Winter 2000, pp. 357-366 (10 Pages), vol. 14, No. 4, Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. |
Wikipedia, “Cache (computing)—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, Cache (computing), Edited by EmausBot, Jul. 22, 2011, Accessed Aug. 10, 2013, 6 Pages. |
Wikipedia, “Fuzzy logic—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, Fuzzy Logic, Edited by Jeff Silvers, Aug. 1, 2011, Accessed Aug. 10, 2013, 10 Pages. |
Wikipedia, “Depth-first search—Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”, http://web.archive.org/web/20070505212029/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-first—search, Apr. 29, 2009, pp. 1-5. |
Sistare, S., et al., “Optimization of MPI collectives on clusters of large-scale SMP's”, Conference on High Performance Networking and Computing, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing; Nov. 1999, pp. 1-14, ACM, New York, NY, USA. |
Tanenbaum, A., “Structured Computer Organization”, Jan. 1984, pp. 1-5, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, ISBN: 0-13-854489-1. |
Shaw, D., et al., DADO: A Tree-Structured Machine Architecture for Production Systems, AAAI-82 Proceedings, Jan. 1982, AAAI (www.aaai.org), pp. 242-246, AAAI Press. |
Better Explained, “Swap two variables using XOR I BetterExplained”, http://betterexplained.com/articles/swap-two-variables-using-xor, Accessed Jun. 4, 2011, pp. 1-8. |
Rosenberg, J., “Dictionary of Computers, Information Processing & Telecommunications”, Sep. 1987, pp. 1-5, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/770,286, filed Apr. 2010, Archer et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/748,594, filed Mar. 2010, Archer et al. |
Keller, R., et al., “MPI Development Tools and Applications for the Grid”, In Workshop on Grid Applications and Programming Tools, Jun. 20, 2003, pp. 1-12, Innovative Computing Laboratory, Computer Science Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. |
Edmonds et al., “AM++: A Generalized Active Message Framework”, The 19th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT'10), Sep. 11-15, 2010, pp. 1-10, ACM, New York, NY USA. ISBN: 978-1-4503-0178-7. |
Bangalore et al., “Extending the Message Passing Interface (MPI)”, Proceedings of the 1994 Conference on Scalable Parallel Libraries, Oct. 12-14, 1994, pp. 106-118, IEEE Computer Society Press, USA. IEEE Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/SPLC.1994.376998. |
Kodama, Y., et al., “Efficient MPI Collective Operations for Clusters in Long-and-Fast Networks” , pp. 1-9, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, Sep. 2006, IEEE. |
Shaw, D., et al., DADO: A Tree-Structured Machine Architecture for Production Systems, AAAI-82 Proceedings, Month: Unknown, Year: 1982, AAAI (www.aaai.org), pp. 242-246, Columbia University. |
Choi, H., et al., “An All-Reduce Operation in Star Networks Using All-to-All Broadcast Communication Patterns”, V.S. Sunderam et al. (Eds.): ICCS 2005, LNCS 3514, pp. 419-426, 2005, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005. |
Patarasuk, P., et al., “Bandwidth Efficient All-reduce Operation on Tree Topologies”, IEEE IPDPS Workshop on High-Level Parallel Programming Models and Supportive Environments, 2007, pp. 1-8, IEEE. |
Bafna, R., et al, “Coprocessor Design to Support MPI Primitives in Configurable Mutliprocessors”, Integration, the VLSI Journal, vol. 40 , Issue: 3 , pp. 235-252, Apr. 2007, Elsevier, URL: http://web.njit.edu/˜ziavras/INTEGRATION-1.pdf. |
Tang, H., et al., “Optimizing Threaded MPI Execution on SMP Clusters,” ICS '01 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Supercomputing, Jun. 2001, pp. 381-392, ACM, New York, USA. |
Sunggu, L., et al., “Interleaved All-To-All Reliable Broadcast on Meshes and Hypercubes”, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, May 1994, pp. 449-458, vol. 5, No. 5, IEEE Xplore. |
Sistare., et al., “Optimization of MPI collectives on clusters of large-scale SMP's”, Conference on High Performance Networking and Computing, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing; Nov. 1999, pp. 1-18, ACM, New York, USA. |
Tanenbaum, A., “Structured Computer Organization”, Jan. 1984, pp. 1-5, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA, ISBN: 0-13-854489-1. |
Rosenberg, J., “Dictionary of Computers, Information Processing & Telecommunications”, Sep. 1987, 5 pages, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/124,745, Mar. 6, 2013. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/770,286, Jan. 29, 2013. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/748,594, Mar. 22, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/790,037, Mar. 15, 2013. |
Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/459,832, Jan. 4, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/585,993, Jan. 31, 2013. |
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/672,740, Apr. 2, 2013. |
Herbordt, M.C., et al., “Computing Parallel Prefix and Reduction Using Coterie Structures,” Fourth Symposium on the Frontiers of Massively Parallel Computation, 1992., Oct. 19-21, 1992, pp. 141-149, Conference Location: McLean, VA, USA, IEEE Xplore Digital Library. DOI: 10.1109/FMPC.1992.234895. |
Fisher, A., et al., “Computing the Hough Transform on a Scar Line Array Processor”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (Image Processing), vol. II, No. 3, Mar. 1989, pp. 262-265, IEEE Computer Society. DOI: 10.1109/34.21795. |
Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/665,985, Apr. 25, 2014, pp. 1-19. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130086358 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13206116 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 13683702 | US |