Advertisement

Minimizing Associativity Conflicts in Morton Layout

  • Jeyarajan Thiyagalingam
  • Olav Beckmann
  • Paul H. J. Kelly
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3911)

Abstract

Hierarchically-blocked non-linear storage layouts, such as the Morton ordering, have been shown to be a potentially attractive compromise between row-major and column-major for two-dimensional arrays. When combined with appropriate optimizations, Morton layout offers some spatial locality whether traversed row- or column-wise. However, for linear algebra routines with larger problem sizes, the layout shows diminishing returns. It is our hypothesis that associativity conflicts between Morton blocks cause this behavior and we show that carefully arranging the Morton blocks can minimize this effect. We explore one such arrangement and report our preliminary results.

Keywords

Cache Line Large Problem Size Page Size Array Layout Associative Cache 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thiyagalingam, J., Beckmann, O., Kelly, P.H.J.: Improving the performance of Morton layout by array alignment and loop unrolling reducing the price of naivety. In: Rauchwerger, L. (ed.) LCPC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2958, pp. 241–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wise, D.S., Frens, J.D., Gu, Y., Alexander, G.A.: Language support for morton-order matrices. In: PPoPP 2001: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practices of Parallel Programming, pp. 24–33 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatterjee, S., Lebeck, A.R., Patnala, P.K., Thottethodi, M.: Recursive array layouts and fast parallel matrix multiplication. In: SPAA 1999: Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pp. 222–231 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chatterjee, S., Jain, V.V., Lebeck, A.R., Mundhra, S., Thottethodi, M.: Nonlinear array layouts for hierarchical memory systems. In: ICS 1999: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Supercomputing, pp. 444–453 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gustavson, F.G.: New generalized data structures for matrices lead to a variety of high performance algorithms. In: Wyrzykowski, R., Dongarra, J., Paprzycki, M., Waśniewski, J. (eds.) PPAM 2001. LNCS, vol. 2328, pp. 418–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drakenberg, P., Lundevall, F., Lisper, B.: An efficient semi-hierarchical array layout. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Interaction between Compilers and Computer Architectures, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001), Available via: www.mrtc.mdh.se Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thiyagalingam, J.: Alternative Array Storage Layouts for Regular Scientific Programs. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, U.K. (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SPEC 2000 CPU Benchmarks (2000), http://www.specbench.org/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeyarajan Thiyagalingam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olav Beckmann
    • 1
  • Paul H. J. Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Harrow School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WestminsterHarrowUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations