Advertisement

A Distributed Version of Syrup

  • Gilles Audemard
  • Jean-Marie Lagniez
  • Nicolas Szczepanski
  • Sébastien Tabary
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10491)

Abstract

A portfolio SAT solver has to share clauses in order to be efficient. In a distributed environment, such sharing implies additional problems: more information has to be exchanged and communications among solvers can be time consuming. In this paper, we propose a new version of the state-of-the-art SAT solver Syrup that is now able to run on distributed architectures. We analyze and compare different programming models of communication. We show that, using a dedicated approach, it is possible to share many clauses without penalizing the solvers. Experiments conducted on SAT 2016 benchmarks with up to 256 cores show that our solver is very effective and outperforms other approaches. This opens a broad range of possibilities to boost parallel solvers needing to share many data.

References

  1. 1.
    Aigner, M., Biere, A., Kirsch, C.M., Niemetz, A., Preiner, M.: Analysis of portfolio-style parallel SAT solving on current multi-core architectures. In: Fourth Pragmatics of SAT Workshop, a Workshop of the SAT 2013 Conference, POS 2013, pp. 28–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amer, A., Lu, H., Balaji, P., Matsuoka, S.: Characterizing MPI and hybrid MPI+threads applications at scale: case study with BFS. In: 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, CCGrid 2015, pp. 1075–1083 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Audemard, G., Hoessen, B., Jabbour, S., Lagniez, J.-M., Piette, C.: Revisiting clause exchange in parallel SAT solving. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 200–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Audemard, G., Lagniez, J.-M., Mazure, B., Saïs, L.: On freezing and reactivating learnt clauses. In: Sakallah, K.A., Simon, L. (eds.) SAT 2011. LNCS, vol. 6695, pp. 188–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Audemard, G., Lagniez, J.-M., Szczepanski, N., Tabary, S.: An adaptive parallel SAT solver. In: Rueher, M. (ed.) CP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9892, pp. 30–48. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44953-1_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, pp. 399–404 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Lazy clause exchange policy for parallel SAT solvers. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 197–205. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_15 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balaji, P., Buntinas, D., Goodell, D., Gropp, W., Thakur, R.: Fine-grained multithreading support for hybrid threaded MPI programming. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. IJHPCA 24(1), 49–57 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balyo, T., Sanders, P., Sinz, C.: HordeSat: a massively parallel portfolio SAT solver. In: Heule, M., Weaver, S. (eds.) SAT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9340, pp. 156–172. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biere, A.: (P)lingeling. http://fmv.jku.at/lingeling
  11. 11.
    Carribault, P., Pérache, M., Jourdren, H.: Enabling low-overhead hybrid MPI/OpenMP parallelism with MPC. In: Sato, M., Hanawa, T., Müller, M.S., Chapman, B.M., Supinski, B.R. (eds.) IWOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6132, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13217-9_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehlers, T., Nowotka, D., Sieweck, P.: Communication in massively-parallel SAT solving. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2014, pp. 709–716 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franco, J., Martin, J.: A history of satisfiability, Chap.1. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 185, pp. 3–74. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, E., Novikov, Y.: BerkMin: a fast and robust sat-solver. Discrete Appl. Math. 155(12), 1549–1561 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Kautz, H.A.: Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Tenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 1998, IAAI 1998, pp. 431–437 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grant, R.E., Skjellum, A., Bangalore, P.V.: Lightweight threading with MPI using persistent communications semantics. National Nuclear Security Administration, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamadi, Y., Jabbour, S., Sais, L.: ManySat: a parallel SAT solver. J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput. JSAT 6(4), 245–262 (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Marek, V.W.: Solving and verifying the boolean pythagorean triples problem via cube-and-conquer. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 228–245. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_15 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: A SAT attack on the Erdős discrepancy conjecture. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 219–226. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09284-3_17 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kshemkalyani, A.D., Singhal, M.: Efficient detection and resolution of generalized distributed deadlocks. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. TSE 20(1), 43–54 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanti, D., Manthey, N.: Sharing information in parallel search with search space partitioning. In: Nicosia, G., Pardalos, P. (eds.) LION 2013. LNCS, vol. 7997, pp. 52–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-44973-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lodha, S., Kshemkalyani, A.D.: A fair distributed mutual exclusion algorithm. IEEE Tran. Parallel Distrib. Syst. (TPDS) 11(6), 537–549 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva, J.P.M., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP - a new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-aided Design, ICCAD 1996, pp. 220–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Chaff: engineering an efficient sat solver. In: Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference, DAC 2001, pp. 530–535 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Nishio, S., Li, K.F., Manning, E.G.: A resilient mutual exclusion algorithm for computer networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. (TPDS) 1(3), 344–356 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pipatsrisawat, K., Darwiche, A.: A lightweight component caching scheme for satisfiability solvers. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, pp. 294–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72788-0_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singhal, M.: A taxonomy of distributed mutual exclusion. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 18(1), 94–101 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, L., Bull, M.: Development of mixed mode MPI/OpenMP applications. Sci. Program. 9(2–3), 83–98 (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thakur, R., Gropp, W.: Test suite for evaluating performance of MPI implementations that support MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE. In: Cappello, F., Herault, T., Dongarra, J. (eds.) EuroPVM/MPI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4757, pp. 46–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75416-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tak, P., Heule, M.J.H., Biere, A.: Concurrent cube-and-conquer. In: Cimatti, A., Sebastiani, R. (eds.) SAT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7317, pp. 475–476. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31612-8_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weigang, W., Zhang, J., Luo, A., Cao, J.: Distributed mutual exclusion algorithms for intersection traffic control. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. (TPDS) 26(1), 65–74 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang, L., Madigan, C., Moskewicz, M., Malik, S.: Efficient conflict driven learning in boolean satisfiability solver. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD), pp. 279–285 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Audemard
    • 1
  • Jean-Marie Lagniez
    • 1
  • Nicolas Szczepanski
    • 1
  • Sébastien Tabary
    • 1
  1. 1.Univ. Lille-Nord de France, CRIL/CNRS UMR 8188LensFrance

Personalised recommendations