1. James Edwards and Uzi Vishkin University of Maryland 1

2.  Motivation ◦ Begin with a theory of parallel algorithms (PRAM) ◦ Develop an architecture (XMT) based on theory ◦ Validate theory using architecture ◦ Validate architecture using theory  In order to validate XMT, we need to move beyond simple benchmark kernels ◦ This is in line with the history of benchmarking of performance (e.g. SPEC)  Triconnectivity is the most complex algorithm that has been tested on XMT. ◦ Only one serial implementation is publically available, and no prior parallel implementation ◦ Prior work of similar complexity on XMT includes biconnectivity [EV12- PMAM/PPoPP] and maximum flow [CV11-SPAA]. 2

3. advanced planarity testing advanced triconnectivityplanarity testing triconnectivityst-numbering k-edge/vertex connectivity minimum spanning forest Euler tours ear decompo- sition search bicon- nectivity strong orientation centroid decomposition tree contraction lowest common ancestors graph connectivity tree Euler tour list ranking 2-ruling set prefix-sumsdeterministic coin tossing

4. 4 12 34 56 12 34 56 34 34 Input graph GTriconnected components of G

5.  High-level structure ◦ Key insight for serial and parallel algorithms: separation pairs lie on cycles in the input graph ◦ Serial [HT73]: use depth-first search. ◦ Parallel [RV88, MR92]: use an ear decomposition. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ear decomposition of G E1E2E3

6.  Low-level structure ◦ The bulk of the algorithm lies in general subroutines such as graph connectivity. ◦ Implementation of the triconnectivity algorithm was greatly assisted by reuse of a library developed during earlier work on biconnectivity (PMAM ‘12).  Using this library, a majority of students successfully completed a programming assignment on biconnectivity in 2-3 weeks in a grad course on parallel algorithms. 6

7.  The Explicit Multi-Threading (XMT) architecture was developed at the University of Maryland with the following goals in mind: ◦ Good performance on parallel algorithms of any granularity ◦ Support for regular or irregular memory access ◦ Efficient execution of code derived from PRAM algorithms  A 64-processor FPGA hardware prototype and a software toolchain (compiler and simulator) exist; the latter is freely available for download. 7

8.  Random graph: Edges are added at random between unique pairs of vertices  Planar3 graph: Vertices are added in layers of three; each vertex in a layer is connected to the other vertices in the layer and two vertices of the preceding layer  Ladder: Similar to Planar3, but with two vertices per layer 8

9. 9

10. 10 T(n, m, s) = (2.38n + 0.238m + 4.75s) log 2 n

11.  The speedups presented here (up to 129x) in conjunction with prior results for biconnectivity (up to 33x) and max-flow (up to 108x) demonstrates that the advantage of XMT is not limited to small kernels. ◦ Biconnectivity was an exceptional challenge due to the compactness of the serial algorithm.  This work completes the capstone of the proof- of-concept of PRAM algorithms on XMT.  With this work, we now have the foundation in place to advance to work on applications. 11

12.  [CV11-SPAA] G. Caragea, U. Vishkin. Better Speedups for Parallel Max-Flow. Brief Announcement, SPAA 2011.  [EV12-PMAM] J. Edwards and U. Vishkin. Better Speedups Using Simpler Parallel Programming for Graph Connectivity and Biconnectivity. PMAM, 2012.  [EV12-SPAA] J. Edwards and U. Vishkin. Brief Announcement: Speedups for Parallel Graph Triconnectivity. SPAA, 2012.  [HT73] J. E. Hopcroft and R. E. Tarjan. Dividing a graph into triconnected components. SIAM J. Computing, 2(3):135–158, 1973. 12

13.  [MR92] G. L. Miller and V. Ramachandran. A new graph triconnectivity algorithm and its parallelization. Combinatorica, 12(1):53–76, 1992.  [KTCBV11] F. Keceli, A. Tzannes, G. Caragea, R. Barua and U. Vishkin. Toolchain for programming, simulating and studying the XMT many-core architecture. Proc. 16th Int. Workshop on High-Level Parallel Programming Models and Supportive Environments (HIPS), in conjunction with IPDPS, Anchorage, Alaska, May 20, 2011. 13

14.  [RV88] V. Ramachandran and U. Vishkin. Efficient parallel triconnectivity in logarithmic time. In Proc. AWOC, pages 33–42, 1988.  [TV85] R. E. Tarjan and U. Vishkin. An Efficient Parallel Biconnectivity Algorithm. SIAM J. Computing, 14(4):862–874, 1985.  [WV08] X. Wen and U. Vishkin. FPGA-Based Prototype of a PRAM-on-Chip Processor. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Computing Frontiers, CF ’08, pages 55–66, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. 14

15. 15

16.  PRAM algorithms are not a good match for current hardware: ◦ Fine-grained parallelism = overheads  Requires managing many threads  Synchronization and communication are expensive  Clustering reduces granularity, but at the cost of load balancing ◦ Irregular memory accesses = poor locality  Cache is not used efficiently  Performance becomes sensitive to memory latency 16

17.  Main feature of XMT: Using similar hardware resources (e.g. silicon area, power consumption) as existing CPUs and GPUs, provide a platform that to a programmer looks as close to a PRAM as possible. ◦ Instead of ~8 “heavy” processor cores, provide ~1,024 “light” cores for parallel code and one “heavy” core for serial code. ◦ Devote on-chip bandwidth to a high-speed interconnection network rather than maintaining coherence between private caches. 17

18. ◦ For the PRAM algorithm presented, the number of HW threads is more important than the processing power per thread because they happen to perform more work than an equivalent serial algorithm. This cost is overridden by sufficient parallelism in hardware. ◦ Balance between the tight synchrony of the PRAM and hardware constraints (such as locality) is obtained through support for fine-grained multithreaded code, where a thread can advance at it own speed between (a form of) synchronization barriers. 18

19.  Maximal planar graph ◦ Built layer by layer ◦ The first layer has three vertices and three edges. ◦ Each additional layer has three vertices and nine edges. 19