InKS: a programming model to decouple algorithm from optimization in HPC codes

Abstract

Existing programming models tend to tightly interleave algorithm and optimization in HPC simulation codes. This requires scientists to become experts in both the simulated domain and the optimization process and makes the code difficult to maintain or port to new architectures. In this paper, we propose the \({\textsc {InKS}}\) programming model that decouples these concerns with two distinct languages: \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {pia} }\) to express the simulation algorithm and \({{\textsc {InKS}}}_{\textsf {pso} }\) for optimizations. We define \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {pia} }\) and evaluate the feasibility of defining \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {pso} }\) with three test languages: \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {o/C++} }\), \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {o/loop} }\) and \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {o/XMP} }\). We evaluate the approach on synthetic benchmarks (NAS and heat equation) as well as on a more complex example (6D Vlasov–Poisson solver). Our evaluation demonstrates the soundness of the approach as it improves the separation of algorithmic and optimization concerns at no performance cost. We also identify a set of guidelines for the later full definition of the \({\textsc {InKS}}_{\textsf {pso} }\) language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    Augonnet C, Thibault S, Namyst R, Wacrenier PA (2011) StarPU: a unified platform for task scheduling on heterogeneous multicore architectures. Concurr Comput Pract Exper 23(2):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.1631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Aumage O, Bigot J, Ejjaaouani K, Mehrenberger M (2017) InKS, a programming model to decouple performance from semantics in simulation codes. Technical report, Inria

  3. 3.

    Bailey DH, Barszcz E, Barton JT, Browning DS, Carter RL, Dagum L, Fatoohi RA, Frederickson PO, Lasinski TA, Schreiber RS, Simon HD, Venkatakrishnan V, Weeratunga SK (1991) The NAS parallel benchmarks. Int J Supercomput Appl 5(3):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/109434209100500306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 5.

    Chandra R, Dagum L, Kohr D, Maydan D, McDonald J, Menon R (2001) Parallel programming in OpenMP. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos

    Google Scholar 

  5. 6.

    Christen M, Schenk O, Burkhart H (2011) PATUS: a code generation and autotuning framework for parallel iterative stencil computations on modern microarchitectures. In: Parallel and distributed processing symposium (IPDPS) 2011, IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ipdps.2011.70

  6. 7.

    Cosnard M, Jeannot E (1999) Compact dag representation and its dynamic scheduling. J Parallel Distrib Comput 58(3):487–514. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpdc.1999.1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 8.

    Danelutto M, García J, Miguel Sanchez L, Sotomayor R, Torquati M (2016) Introducing parallelism by using REPARA C++11 attributes. pp 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/PDP.2016.115

  8. 4.

    Edwards HC, Trott CR, Sunderland D (2014) Kokkos. J Parallel Distrib Comput 74(12):3202–3216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2014.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    El-Ghazawi T, Carlson W, Sterling T, Yelick K (2005) UPC: distributed shared memory programming. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Feautrier P, Lengauer C (2011) Polyhedron model. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09766-4_502

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Griebler D, Loff J, Mencagli G, Danelutto M, Fernandes LG (2018) Efficient NAS benchmark kernels with c++ parallel programming. In: 2018 26th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP). https://doi.org/10.1109/PDP2018.2018.00120

  12. 12.

    Hoque R, Herault T, Bosilca G, Dongarra J (2017) Dynamic task discovery in PaRSEC: a data-flow task-based runtime. In: 8th workshop on latest advances in scalable algorithms for large-scale systems, ACM

  13. 13.

    Höhnerbach M, Ismail AE, Bientinesi P (2016) The vectorization of the Tersoff multi-body potential: an exercise in performance portability. In: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, IEEE

  14. 14.

    Isoard A (2016) Extending polyhedral techniques towards parallel specifications and approximations. Ph.D. thesis, École doctorale en Informatique et Mathématiques de Lyon

  15. 15.

    Kamil S (2012) StencilProbe: a microbenchmark for stencil applications. Accessed 25 Aug 2017

  16. 16.

    Kormann K, Reuter K, Rampp M (2019) A massively parallel semi-Lagrangian solver for the six-dimensional Vlasov–Poisson equation. Int J High Perform Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342019834644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lee J, Sato M (2010) Implementation and performance evaluation of XcalableMP: a parallel programming language for distributed memory systems. In: International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops

  18. 18.

    Mehrenberger M, Steiner C, Marradi L, Crouseilles N, Sonnendrucker E, Afeyan B (2013) Vlasov on GPU (VOG project). In: ESAIM: Proceedings of 43. https://doi.org/10.1051/proc/201343003

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Steuwer M, Remmelg T, Dubach C (2017) LIFT: a functional data-parallel IR for high-performance GPU code generation. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM international symposium on code generation and optimization (CGO)

  20. 20.

    Tang Y, Chowdhury RA, Kuszmaul BC, Luk CK, Leiserson CE (2011) The Pochoir stencil compiler. In: 23rd symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures, ACM, SPAA ’11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1989493.1989508

  21. 21.

    Tanno H, Iwasaki H (2009) Parallel skeletons for variable-length lists in SkeTo skeleton library. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Euro-Par Conference on Parallel Processing, Springer, Euro-Par ’09. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03869-3_63

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Verdoolaege S (2010) isl: an integer set library for the polyhedral model. In: Fukuda K, Hoeven J, Joswig M, Takayama N (eds) Mathematical software—ICMS 2010. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ksander Ejjaaouani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ejjaaouani, K., Aumage, O., Bigot, J. et al. InKS: a programming model to decouple algorithm from optimization in HPC codes. J Supercomput 76, 4666–4681 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-019-02950-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Programming model
  • Separation of concerns
  • HPC
  • DSL