Tree-based parallel load-balancing methods for solution-adaptive unstructured finite element models on distributed memory multicomputers

  • Ching-Jung Liao
  • Yeh-Ching Chung
Regular Talks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1457)


In this paper, we propose three tree-based parallel load-balancing methods, the MCSTPLB method, the BTPLB method, and the CBTPLB method, to deal with the load unbalancing problems of solution-adaptive finite element application programs. To evaluate the performance of the proposed methods, we have implemented those methods along with three mapping methods, the AE/ORB method, the AE/MC method, and the MLkP method, on an SP2 parallel machine. The experimental results show that (1) if a mapping method is used for the initial partitioning and this mapping method or a load-balancing method is used in each refinement, the execution time of an application program under a load-balancing method is always shorter than that of the mapping method. (2) The execution time of an application program under the CBTPLB method is better than that of the BTPLB method that is better than that of the MCSTPLB method.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    I.G. Angus, G.C. Fox, J.S. Kim, and D.W. Walker, Solving Problems on Concurrent Processors, Vol. 2, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.T. Barnard and H.D. Simon, “Fast Multilevel Implementation of Recursive Spectral Bisection for Partitioning Unstructured Problems,” Concurrency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 101–117, Apr. 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y.C. Chung and C.J. Liao, “A Processor Oriented Partitioning Method for Mapping Unstructured Finite Element Graphs on SP2 Parallel Machines,” Technical Report, Institute of Information Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, Sep. 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Cybenko, “Dynamic Load Balancing for Distributed Memory Multiprocessors,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 279–301, Oct. 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Ercal, J. Ramanujam, and P. Sadayappan, “Task Allocation onto a Hypercube by Recursive Mincut Bipartitioning,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, Vol. 10, pp. 35–44, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability, A Guide to Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.R. Gilbert, G.L. Miller, and S.H. Teng, “Geometric Mesh Partitioning: Implementation and Experiments,” Proceedings of 9th International Parallel Processing Symposium, Santa Barbara, California, pp. 418–427, Apr. 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Hendrickson and R. Leland, “The Chaco User's Guide: Version 2.0,” Technical Report SAND94-2692, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Oct. 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Hendrickson and R. Leland, “An Improved Spectral Graph Partitioning Algorithm for Mapping Parallel Computations,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 16, No.2, pp. 452–469, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Karypis and V. Kumar, “Multilevel k-way Partitioning Scheme for Irregular Graphs,” Technical Report 95-064, Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.W. Kernigham and S. Lin, “An Efficient Heuristic Procedure for Partitioning Graphs,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 292–370, Feb. 1970.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.B. Kruskal, “On the Shortest Spanning Subtree of a Graph and the Traveling Salesman Problem,” In Proceeding of the AMS, Vol. 7, pp. 48–50, 1956.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.W. Ou and S. Ranka, “Parallel Incremental Graph Partitioning,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 884–896, Aug. 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Preis and R. Diekmann, “The PARTY Partitioning — Library User Guide — Version 1.1,” HENIZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE Universität Paderborn, Germany, Sep. 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Shu and M.Y. Wu, “Runtime Incremental Parallel Scheduling (RIPS) on Distributed Memory Computers,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 637–649, June 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H.D. Simon, “Partitioning of Unstructured Problems for Parallel Processing,” Computing Systems in Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2/3, pp. 135–148, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.H. Walshaw and M. Berzins, “Dynamic Load-Balancing for PDE Solvers on Adaptive Unstructured Meshes,” Concurrency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 17–28, Feb. 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.D. Williams, “Performance of Dynamic Load Balancing Algorithms for Unstructured Mesh Calculations,” Concurrency: Practice and Experience, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 457–481, Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.D. Williams, DIME: Distributed Irregular Mesh Environment, California Institute of Technology, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.Y. Wu, “On Runtime Parallel Scheduling,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 173–186, Feb. 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ching-Jung Liao
    • 1
  • Yeh-Ching Chung
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and StatisticsThe Overseas Chinese College of CommerceTaichung, TaiwanROC
  2. 2.Department of Information EngineeringFeng Chia UniversityTaichung, TaiwanROC

Personalised recommendations