Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMacie Tyer Modified about 1 year ago

1
Adaptive Latency-Aware Parallel Resource Mapping: Task Graph Scheduling Heterogeneous Network Topology Liwen Shih, Ph.D. Computer Engineering U of Houston – Clear Lake shih@uhcl.edu

2
ADAPTIVE PARALLEL TASK TO NETWORK TOPOLOGY MAPPING Latency-adaptive: Topology Traffic Bandwidth Workload System hierarchy Thread partition: Coarse Medium Fine

3
Fine-Grained Mapping System [Shih 1988] 3 Parallel Mapping –Compiler- vs. run- time Task migration –Vertical vs. Horizontal Domain decomposition –Data vs. Function Execution order –Eager data-driven vs. Lazy demand-driven

4
PRIORITIZE TASK DFG NODES Task priority factors: 1.Level depth 2.Critical Paths 3.In/Out degree Data flow partial order: {(n7 n5), (n7 n4), (n6 n4), (n6 n3), (n5 n1), (n4 n2), (n3 n2), (n2 n1)} total task priority order: {n1 > n2 > n4 > n3 > n5 > n6 > n7} P2 thread: {n1>n2>n4>n3>n6} P3 thread: {n5 > n7}

5
SHORTEST-PATH NETWORK ROUTING Shortest latency and routes are updated after each task- processor allocation.

6
Given a directed, acyclic task DFG G(V, E) with task vertex set V connected by data-flow edge set E, And a processor network topology N(P, C) with processor node set P connected by channel link set C Find a processor assignment and schedule S: V(G) P (N) S minimizes total parallel computation time of G. A* Heuristic mapping reduces scheduling complexity from NP to P Adaptive A* Parallel Processor Scheduler

7
Demand-Driven Task-Topology mapping STEP 1 – assign a level to each task node vertex in G. STEP 2 – count critical paths passing through each DFG edge and node with a 2-pass bottom-up and then up-down graph traversal. STEP 3 – initially load and prioritize all deepest level task nodes that produce outputs, to the working task node list. STEP 4 – WHILE working task node list is not empty, schedule a best processor to the top priority task, and replace it with its parent task nodes inserted onto the working task node priority list.

8
STEP 4 – WHILE working task node list is not empty: BEGIN – STEP 4.1 – initialize if first time, otherwise update inter-processor shortest- path latency/routing table pair affected by last task-processor allocation. – STEP 4.2 – assign a nearby capable processor to minimize thread computation time for the highest priority task node at the top of the remaining prioritized working list. – STEP 4.3 – remove the newly scheduled task node, and replace it with its parent nodes, which are to be inserted/appended onto the working list (demand-driven) per priority, based on tie-breaker rules, which along with node level depth, estimate the time cost of the entire computation tread involved. END{WHILE} Demand-Driven Processor Scheduling

9
QUANTIFY SW/HW MAPPING QUALITY Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping Example 2 – Scaling to Larger Tree-to-Tree Mapping Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph

10
Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping K-th Largest Selection Will tree Algorithm [3] match tree machine [4] ?

11
Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping Adaptive mapping moves toward sequential processing when inter/intra communication latency ratio increase.

12
Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping Adaptive Mapper allocates fewer processors and channels with fewer hops.

13
Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping Adaptive Mapper achieves higher speedups consistently. (Bonus! 25.7+ pipeline processing speedup and be extrapolated when inter/intra communication latency ratio <1)

14
Example 1 – Latency-Adaptive Tree-Task to Tree-Machine Mapping Adaptive Mapper results in better efficiencies consistently. (Bonus! 428.3+% pipeline processing efficiency can be extrapolated when inter/intra communication latency ratio <1)

15
Example 2 – Scaling to Larger Tree-to- Tree Mapping Adaptive Mapper achieves sub-optimal speedups as tree sizes scaled larger speedups, still trailing fixed tree-to-tree mapping closely.

16
Example 2 – Scaling to Larger Tree-to- Tree Mapping Adaptive Mapper is always more cost- efficient using less resource, with compatible sub-optimal speedups to fixed tree- to-tree mapping as tree sizes scaled.

17
Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph Lack of matching topology clues for irregular shaped Robot Elbow Manipulator [5] 105 task nodes, 161 data flow edges 29 node levels

18
Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph Candidate topologies Compare schedules for each topology Farther processors may not be selected –Linear Array –Tree

19
Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph Best network topology performers (# channels) Complete (28) Mesh (12) Chordal ring (16) Systolic array (16) Cube (12)

20
Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph Fewer processors selected for higher diameter networks Tree Linear Array

21
Example 3 – Select the Best Processor Topology Match for an Irregular Task Graph Deducing network switch hops Low multi-hop data exchanges < 10% Moderate 0-hop of 30% to 50% High near-neighbor direct 1-hop 50% to 70%

22
Future Speed/Memory/Power Optimization Latency-adaptive –Topology –Traffic –Bandwidth –Workload –System hierarchy Thread partition –Coarse –Mid –Fine Latency/Routing tables –Neighborhood –Network hierarchy –Worm-hole –Dynamic mobile network routing –Bandwidth –Heterogeneous system Algorithm-specific network topology

23
References

24
24 Liwen Shih, Ph.D. Professor in Computer Engineering University of Houston – Clear Lake shih@uhcl.edu Q & A?

25
xScale13 paper

27
Thank You! 27

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google