Profiling high performance dense linear algebra algorithms on multicore architectures for power and energy efficiency
- 202 Downloads
This paper presents the power profile of two high performance dense linear algebra libraries i.e., LAPACK and PLASMA. The former is based on block algorithms that use the fork-join paradigm to achieve parallel performance. The latter uses fine-grained task parallelism that recasts the computation to operate on submatrices called tiles. In this way tile algorithms are formed. We show results from the power profiling of the most common routines, which permits us to clearly identify the different phases of the computations. This allows us to isolate the bottlenecks in terms of energy efficiency. Our results show that PLASMA surpasses LAPACK not only in terms of performance but also in terms of energy efficiency.
KeywordsPower profile Energy efficiency Dense linear algebra Tile algorithms Multicore architectures
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Agullo E, Hadri B, Ltaief H, Dongarrra J (2009) Comparative study of one-sided factorizations with multiple software packages on multi-core hardware. In: SC ’09: proceedings of the conference on high performance computing networking, storage and analysis. ACM, New York, pp 1–12. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1654059.1654080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Chen G, Malkowski K, Kandemir MT, Raghavan P (2005) Reducing power with performance constraints for parallel sparse applications. In: IPDPS. IEEE Comput Soc, Los Alamitos. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/IPDPS.2005.378 Google Scholar
- 10.Freeh VW, Lowenthal DK (2005) Using multiple energy gears in MPI programs on a power-scalable cluster. In: Pingali K, Yelick KA, Grimshaw AS (eds) Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN symposium on principles and practice of parallel programming (10th PPOPP’2005), Chicago, IL, USA. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol 40, pp 164–173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Golub GH, Van Loan CF (1996) Matrix computation, 3rd edn. John Hopkins studies in the mathematical sciences. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Google Scholar
- 15.Kogge P, Bergman K, Borkar S, Campbell D, Carlson W, Dally W, Denneau M, Franzon P, Harrod W, Hill K, Hiller J, Karp S, Keckler S, Klein D, Lucas R, Richards M, Scarpelli A, Scott S, Snavely A, Sterling T, Williams RS, Yelick K (2008) Exascale computing study: technology challenges in achieving exascale systems. Tech Rep TR-2008-13, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. University of Notre Dame Google Scholar
- 16.Ltaief H, Luszczek P, Dongarra J (2011, submitted) High performance bidiagonal reduction using tile algorithms on homogeneous multicore architectures. ACM Trans Math Softw Google Scholar
- 17.Luszczek P, Ltaief H, Dongarra J (2011) Two-stage tridiagonal reduction for dense symmetric matrices using tile algorithms on multicore architectures. In: Proceedings of IPDPS 2011. ACM, Anchorage Google Scholar
- 18.Multicore application modeling infrastructure (MuMI) project. http://www.mumi-tool.org
- 19.Sutter H (2005) The free lunch is over: a fundamental turn toward concurrency in software. Dr Dobb’s Journal 30(3). http://www.ddj.com/184405990
- 21.University of Tennessee Knoxville (2010) PLASMA users’ guide, parallel linear algebra software for multicore architectures, version 2.3. Available electronically at http://icl.cs.utk.edu/projectsfiles/plasma/pdf/users_guide.pdf