Advertisement

Dynamic dependence analysis: A novel method for data dependence evaluation

  • P. Peterson
  • D. Padua
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 757)

Abstract

A dynamic evaluation of the effects of data dependence analysis in the Perfect Benchmarks is demonstrated. We show that it is possible to measure the optimal parallelism, as defined by our model, and to compare the obtained parallelism for various data dependence tests with the optimal parallelism. We find that a variation of Banerjee's inequalities is sufficient in all cases to obtain more than half of the available parallelism, and that the Omega test does not contribute significantly to the measured parallelism.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Banerjee, U. Dependence Analysis for Supercomputing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, D.-K. MAXPAR: An Execution Driven Simulator for Studying Parallel Systems. CSRD Report no. 917, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for Supercomp. Res.&Dev., October 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, D.-K. MaxPar: An Execution Driven Simulator for Studying Parallel Systems. Master's thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for Supercomputing Res. & Dev., October 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goff, G., Kennedy, K., and Tseng, C.-W. Practical dependence testing. SIGPLAN Notices 26, 6 (June 1991), 15–29. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '91 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuck, D. J., Sameh, A. H., Cytron, R., Veidenbaum, A. V., Polychronopoulos, C. D., Lee, G., McDaniel, T., Leasure, B. R., Beckman, C., Davies, J. R. B., and Kruskal, C. P. The Effects of Program Restructuring, Algorithm Change, and Architecture Choice on Program Performance. In Proc. of the 1984 International Conf. on Parallel Processing (August 1984), pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, M. Measuring Parallelism in Computation-Intensive Science/Engineering Applications. IEEE Transactions on Computers 37, 9 (1988), 5–40.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maydan, D. E., Hennessy, J. L., and Lam, M. S. Efficient and exact data dependence analysis. SIGPLAN Notices 26, 6 (June 1991), 1–14. Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN '91 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padua, D. A. The Delta Program Manipulation System — Preliminary Design. CSRD Report no. 808, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for Supercomp. Res.&Dev., June 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perfect Club, et al. The Perfect Club Benchmarks: Effective Performance Evaluation of Supercomputers. International Journal of Supercomputer Applications (Fall 1989), 5–40.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petersen, P., and Padua, D. Machine-Independent Evaluation of Parallelizing Compilers. In Advanced Compilation Techniques for Novel Architectures (January 1992).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petersen, P. M. Evaluation of Programs and Parallelizing Compilers Using Dynamic Analysis Techniques. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pugh, W. The Omega Test: A Fast and Practical Integer Programming Algorithm for Dependence Analysis. Supercomputing'91 (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Peterson
    • 1
  • D. Padua
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations