Understanding application performance on shared virtual memory systems

ABSTRACT

Many researchers have proposed interesting protocols for shared virtual memory (SVM) systems, and demonstrated performance improvements on parallel programs. However, there is still no clear understanding of the performance potential of SVM systems for different classes of applications. This paper begins to fill this gap, by studying the performance of a range of applications in detail and understanding it in light of application characteristics.We first develop a brief classification of the inherent data sharing patterns in the applications, and how they interact with system granularities to yield the communication patterns relevant to SVM systems. We then use detailed simulation to compare the performance of two SVM approaches---Lazy Released Consistency (LRC) and Automatic Update Release Consistency (AURC)---with each other and with an all-hardware CC-NUMA approach. We examine how performance is affected by problem size, machine size, key system parameters, and the use of less optimized program implementations. We find that SVM can indeed perform quite well for systems of at leant up to 32 processors for several nontrivial applications. However, performance is much more variable across applications than on CC-NUMA systems, and the problem sizes needed to obtain good parallel performance are substantially larger. The hardware-assisted AURC system tends to perform significantly better than the all-software LRC under our system assumptions, particularly when realistic cache hierarchies are used.

REFERENCES

• 1: Sarita V. Adve , Alan L. Cox , Sandhya Dwarkadas , Ramakrishnan Rajamony , Willy Zwaenepoel, A Comparison of Entry Consistency and Lazy Release Consistency Implementations, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, p.26, February 03-07, 1996
• 2: John K. Bennett , John B. Carter , Willy Zwaenepoel, Adaptive software cache management for distributed shared memory architectures, Proceedings of the 17th annual international symposium on Computer Architecture, p.125-134, May 28-31, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States
• 3: B.N. Bershad, M.J. Zekauskas, and W.A. Sawdon. The Midway Distributed Shared Memory System. in Proceedings of the IEEE COMPCON '93 Conference, February 1993.
• 4: M. A. Blumrich , K. Li , R. Alpert , C. Dubnicki , E. W. Felten , J. Sandberg, Virtual memory mapped network interface for the SHRIMP multicomputer, Proceedings of the 21ST annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.142-153, April 18-21, 1994, Chicago, Illinois, United States
• 5: John B. Carter , John K. Bennett , Willy Zwaenepoel, Implementation and performance of Munin, Proceedings of the thirteenth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.152-164, October 13-16, 1991, Pacific Grove, California, United States
• 6: A. L. Cox , S. Dwarkadas , P. Keleher , H. Lu , R. Rajamony , W. Zwaenepoel, Software versus hardware shared-memory implementation: a case study, Proceedings of the 21ST annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.106-117, April 18-21, 1994, Chicago, Illinois, United States
• 7: Kourosh Gharachorloo , Daniel Lenoski , James Laudon , Phillip Gibbons , Anoop Gupta , John Hennessy, Memory consistency and event ordering in scalable shared-memory multiprocessors, Proceedings of the 17th annual international symposium on Computer Architecture, p.15-26, May 28-31, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States
• 8: Chris Holt , Mark Heinrich , Jaswinder P Singh , Edward Rothberg , John Hennessy, The Effects of Latency, Occupancy, and Bandwidth in Distributed Shared Memory Multiprocessors, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1995
• 9: Liviu Iftode , Cezary Dubnicki , Edward W. Felten , Kai Li, Improving Release-Consistent Shared Virtual Memory using Automatic Update, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, p.14, February 03-07, 1996
• 10: L. Iftode, J.P. Singh, and K. Li. irregular Applications under Software Shared Memory. Technical Report TR-514-96, Princeton, N J, February 1996.
• 11: L. Iftode, J.P. Singh, and K. Li. Scope Consistency: a Bridge between Release Consistency and Entry Consistency. Technical Report TR-509-96, Princeton, NJ, January 1996.
• 12: P. Keleher, A.L. Cox, S. Dwarkadas, and W. Zwaenepoel. TreadMarks: Distributed Shared Memory on Standard Workstations and Operating Systems. In Proceedings of the Winter USENIX Conference, pages 115-132, January 1994.
• 13: Pete Keleher , Alan L. Cox , Willy Zwaenepoel, Lazy release consistency for software distributed shared memory, Proceedings of the 19th annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.13-21, May 19-21, 1992, Queensland, Australia
• 14: L. I. Kontothanassis , M. L. Scott, Using memory-mapped network interfaces to improve the performance of distributed shared memory, Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, p.166, February 03-07, 1996
• 15: Kai Li , Paul Hudak, Memory coherence in shared virtual memory systems, Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.229-239, August 11-13, 1986, Calgary, Alberta, Canada [doi>10.1145/10590.10610]
• 16: W. Weber , A. Gupta, Analysis of cache invalidation patterns in multiprocessors, Proceedings of the third international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems, p.243-256, April 03-06, 1989, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
• 17: Steven Cameron Woo , Moriyoshi Ohara , Evan Torrie , Jaswinder Pal Singh , Anoop Gupta, The SPLASH-2 programs: characterization and methodological considerations, Proceedings of the 22nd annual international symposium on Computer architecture, p.24-36, June 22-24, 1995, S. Margherita Ligure, Italy

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  B. Hardware
  B.3 MEMORY STRUCTURES
      B.3.2 Design Styles
          Subjects: Virtual memory

Additional Classification:
  B. Hardware
  B.3 MEMORY STRUCTURES
      B.3.3 Performance Analysis and Design Aids**
          Subjects: Simulation**
  B.4 INPUT/OUTPUT AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS

  C. Computer Systems Organization
  C.4 PERFORMANCE OF SYSTEMS
      Subjects: Design studies
  C.5 COMPUTER SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

General Terms:
Design, Performance, Verification