Compilers and More: Gloptimizations

By Michael Wolfe

November 9, 2007

In my last column, I discussed the performance improvements on one of the SPEC CPU2000 floating point benchmarks, 172.mgrid, between 1999 and 2006, and introduced an optimization (which we call Loop-Carried Redundancy Elimination) that improves mgrid significantly. The SPEC CPU committee has been quite careful with benchmarks that are sensitive to compiler tricks. The original SPEC ’89 benchmark suite included 030.matrix300 (dense matrix multiplication). Since matrix multiplication is one of a set of core operations performed in many numerical applications, it was considered a good candidate for a benchmark. But, to quote Reinhold Weicker from the SPEC Newsletter (December 1995): “However, if a program becomes a benchmark, compiler authors can become very creative.”

In this case, compilers were modified to aggressively tile the loops; in each tile, the program performs a sub-matrix multiplication where the submatrices fit into the cache memory, improving the total performance by up to a factor of eight. (The term “loop tiling” or “iteration space tiling” was actually suggested by my wife in 1986; I was looking for a better term to use in a paper, she was looking at the kitchen floor.) Since this one optimization had such a big impact, and didn’t apply to the other benchmarks, the SPEC committee decided that it was not a fair contributor to an overall performance metric, and matrix300 was retired in 1992.

I noted last time that Dell had published a SPEC CPU2000 run in November 1999 on a 733 MHz Pentium III Precision Workstation 420, and another in October 2006 on a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Extreme Precision Workstation 390. I chose to compare these two runs simply because they were from the same vendor seven years apart. The base CFP2000 proved from 242 to 2679, a factor of just over 11. The big winner was 179.art, which improved from a ratio of 313 to 9306, almost a factor of 30 speedup. What accounts for this factor of 30? Can we expect similar improvements for any other program?

One way to achieve great speedups is to make the base case really slow; then, even simple optimizations can deliver a nice improvement. Sometimes, the program is written in a way that seems intentionally aimed at making it run slowly. Such a case appears in ART.

The ART benchmark (Adaptive Resonance Theory neural network for image ecognition) is written in C, and the critical loop is:

    struct{
double *I; double W, X, V, U, P, Q, R;
} * f1_layer;
double **bus;
....
for( tj = 0; tj < numf2s; tj++ ){
Y[tj].y = 0;
if( !Y[tj].reset )
for( ti = 0; ti < numf1s; ti++ )
Y[tj].y += f1_layer[ti].P * bus[ti][tj];
}

This loop appears in several places in the program, and much of the time of the program is spent in it; speed up this loop and the program runs fast.

However, there are several problems here. The struct f1_layer has 8 members, each 8 bytes long (assuming 64-bit pointers). That means each element of f1_layer takes up a whole 64-byte cache line. So while we’re traversing the array f1_layer in the inner loop, we only use one value out of each cache line. Even worse, the two-dimensional array bus is dynamically allocated, and we are traversing down the columns; that means two memory accesses (to get the row pointer bus[ti], then the value bus[ti][tj]). In both cases, the program abuses memory bandwidth in the inner loop, unless the whole dataset fits in the cache.

A few more comments: it turns out the inner loop has a trip count of about 10,000, while the outer loop has only 6 iterations, and the conditional around the inner loop never trips (reset is always 0), at least not in the benchmark datasets, so the inner loop is always executed. These facts are known only at runtime, however.

I’ve seen three ways to make this loop run much faster.  Some compilers implement what has been called the ART hack, reorganizing the data for the struct f1_layer. The array-of-struct is reorganized to become a struct of arrays. It takes the same amount of space, but now each element f1_layer[ti].P become f1_layer.P[ti], so consecutive elements are adjacent in the cache, and the performance of the cache and the whole program improves greatly.

    struct{
double **I; double *W, *X, *V, *U, *P, *Q, *R;
} f1_layer;
double **bus;
....
for( tj = 0; tj < numf2s; tj++ ){
Y[tj].y = 0;
if( !Y[tj].reset )
for( ti = 0; ti < numf1s; ti++ )
Y[tj].y += f1_layer.P[ti] * bus[ti][tj];
}

I did this by hand on an older Intel 3.4GHz EM64T Xeon, using the PGI compilers, and measured a 49% performance improvement. You can imagine what kind of whole program analysis would allow or disallow this reorganization, and it is very rarely feasible. However, this benchmark is so important that some compilers take this step. Here’s an optimization (to abuse the term) that would never have been invented if not for this particular benchmark.

A different trick is to interchange the two loops. The problem being solved is the accesses to the array bus, which are non-adjacent, have no locality, and require two loads per iteration, problems which go away if the two loops are interchanged. However, after interchanging, the new inner loop has a very short trip count (though the compiler probably doesn’t know that). The other more serious problem is that interchanging the loops brings the conditional inside both loops.

    struct{
double *I; double W, X, V, U, P, Q, R;
} * f1_layer;
double **bus;
....
for( tj = 0; tj < numf2s; tj++ )
Y[tj].y = 0;
for( ti = 0; ti < numf1s; ti++ ){
for( tj = 0; tj < numf2s; tj++ )
if( !Y[tj].reset )
Y[tj].y += f1_layer[ti].P * bus[ti][tj];
}

On the same Xeon, I measured a speedup of 2.33. However, this is quite dangerous, from a performance standpoint; instead of ‘numf2s’ conditional tests, there are now ‘numf1s*numf2s’ tests. If the test tripped at all, the modified version could execute quite a bit slower than the original. Yet, at least one compiler implements this and gets more than a factor of two improvement in the whole program, mostly due to this loop transformation.

The third trick, not implemented by any compiler (yet, that I know of), is to leave the loops the way they are and to transpose the array bus (and a similarly accessed array, tds). It turns out these arrays are dynamically allocated, but accessed in the wrong dimension. If we transpose the dimensions, the performance of this loop and the whole program really screams. On that same Xeon, I measured a speedup of 4.3.

This last is somewhat harder to implement automatically. The most severe problem is that C doesn’t really have two-dimensional arrays; to get a two-dimensional dynamic array, the program has to first allocate a one-dimensional vector of pointers. To transpose an array, the program has to allocate a vector of a different size. Purists argue that the modified program might allocate more space, and hence might run out of memory for some large datasets.

Moreover, the performance improvements are not very stable. The speedups I measured on the EM64T were 1.49 for array-of-struct reorganization, 2.3 for loop interchange, and 4.3 for for array transposition. Last month, I compared performance using an older 733MHz Intel Pentium III and a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme. The speedups for these three optimizations on these two machines (and the EM64T) are summarized here:

       EM64T   PIII      Core2
        1.49       1.64      1.08    array-of-struct reorganization
        2.33       1.00      1.03    loop interchange
        4.34       1.19      1.48    array transpose

I am guessing that these optimizations have much less effect on the latest Core 2 because the data all fits in the much larger cache.

So, last month I discussed compiler tuning for 172.mgrid, where a new optimization improved its performance about 20%; happily, we’ve found this new feature applies in many other user applications as well. This month, I presented compiler tuning for 179.art, where aggressive optimization can improve the performance by factors (on some machines). I won’t go into the hacks, tricks, and other tuning for the other SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks; the number of compiler tricks is linearly related to the number of benchmarks.

With the increased importance of benchmark performance, compiler development teams are encouraged to aggressive (or even heroic) efforts to optimize performance on these programs. The only reason they do so is that vendors and users (and compiler product managers) place artificial importance on certain benchmark results. Yet, these optimizations, while impressive, may be of little value, or no value, or even negative value among the more general user domain, or even on the same program with different inputs. As shown here for ART, the value of the optimization may decrease to essentially zero as the architecture progresses.

Therefore, in the spirit of the Golden Raspberry award (http://www.razzies.com/) and the Ig Nobel Prizes (http://www.improbable.com/ig), I propose that we honor the most outrageous, benchmark-specific optimization with an award of its own, the Gloptimization award, or Gloppy for short. The award itself would be a pile of glop (or representation thereof), defined in my American Heritage Dictionary as “n. 1. A messy mixture, as of food. 2. Something, as writing, that is worthless. v. 1. To cover with glop. 2. To put glop on.” The award, at least, is appropriate. More credit should be given to an optimization that applies to a single benchmark; extra credit if it measureably slows down other benchmarks or applications. Posthumous awards can be proposed for optimizations that are actually removed from compilers as the targeted benchmarks are themselves retired. The optimizations mentioned above would certainly be candidates for a Gloppy, though perhaps not winners.

The lesson for customers is that standard benchmarks are valuable tools, but should not be the only or primary means of comparing system performance. The best measure is always the performance of your own applications, to which the systems and accompanying software are not specifically tuned.

SPEC (R) is a registered trademark of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (http://www.spec.org/).

—–

Michael Wolfe has developed compilers for over 30 years in both academia and industry, and is now a senior compiler engineer at The Portland Group, Inc. (www.pgroup.com), a wholly-owned subsidiary of STMicroelectronics, Inc. The opinions stated here are those of the author, and do not represent opinions of The Portland Group, Inc. or STMicroelectronics, Inc.

Subscribe to HPCwire's Weekly Update!

Be the most informed person in the room! Stay ahead of the tech trends with industy updates delivered to you every week!

Advancing Modular Supercomputing with DEEP and DEEP-ER Architectures

February 24, 2017

Knowing that the jump to exascale will require novel architectural approaches capable of delivering dramatic efficiency and performance gains, researchers around the world are hard at work on next-generation HPC systems. Read more…

By Sean Thielen

Weekly Twitter Roundup (Feb. 23, 2017)

February 23, 2017

Here at HPCwire, we aim to keep the HPC community apprised of the most relevant and interesting news items that get tweeted throughout the week. Read more…

By Thomas Ayres

HPE Server Shows Low Latency on STAC-N1 Test

February 22, 2017

The performance of trade and match servers can be a critical differentiator for financial trading houses. Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Financial Update (Feb. 2017)

February 22, 2017

In this recurring feature, we’ll provide you with financial highlights from companies in the HPC industry. Check back in regularly for an updated list with the most pertinent fiscal information. Read more…

By Thomas Ayres

HPE Extreme Performance Solutions

O&G Companies Create Value with High Performance Remote Visualization

Today’s oil and gas (O&G) companies are striving to process datasets that have become not only tremendously large, but extremely complex. And the larger that data becomes, the harder it is to move and analyze it – particularly with a workforce that could be distributed between drilling sites, offshore rigs, and remote offices. Read more…

Rethinking HPC Platforms for ‘Second Gen’ Applications

February 22, 2017

Just what constitutes HPC and how best to support it is a keen topic currently. Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Technique Propels Deep Learning at Scale

February 21, 2017

Researchers from Baidu’s Silicon Valley AI Lab (SVAIL) have adapted a well-known HPC communication technique to boost the speed and scale of their neural network training and now they are sharing their implementation with the larger deep learning community. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

IDC: Will the Real Exascale Race Please Stand Up?

February 21, 2017

So the exascale race is on. And lots of organizations are in the pack. Government announcements from the US, China, India, Japan, and the EU indicate that they are working hard to make it happen – some sooner, some later. Read more…

By Bob Sorensen, IDC

ExxonMobil, NCSA, Cray Scale Reservoir Simulation to 700,000+ Processors

February 17, 2017

In a scaling breakthrough for oil and gas discovery, ExxonMobil geoscientists report they have harnessed the power of 717,000 processors – the equivalent of 22,000 32-processor computers – to run complex oil and gas reservoir simulation models. Read more…

By Doug Black

Advancing Modular Supercomputing with DEEP and DEEP-ER Architectures

February 24, 2017

Knowing that the jump to exascale will require novel architectural approaches capable of delivering dramatic efficiency and performance gains, researchers around the world are hard at work on next-generation HPC systems. Read more…

By Sean Thielen

HPC Technique Propels Deep Learning at Scale

February 21, 2017

Researchers from Baidu’s Silicon Valley AI Lab (SVAIL) have adapted a well-known HPC communication technique to boost the speed and scale of their neural network training and now they are sharing their implementation with the larger deep learning community. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

IDC: Will the Real Exascale Race Please Stand Up?

February 21, 2017

So the exascale race is on. And lots of organizations are in the pack. Government announcements from the US, China, India, Japan, and the EU indicate that they are working hard to make it happen – some sooner, some later. Read more…

By Bob Sorensen, IDC

TSUBAME3.0 Points to Future HPE Pascal-NVLink-OPA Server

February 17, 2017

Since our initial coverage of the TSUBAME3.0 supercomputer yesterday, more details have come to light on this innovative project. Of particular interest is a new board design for NVLink-equipped Pascal P100 GPUs that will create another entrant to the space currently occupied by Nvidia's DGX-1 system, IBM's "Minsky" platform and the Supermicro SuperServer (1028GQ-TXR). Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Tokyo Tech’s TSUBAME3.0 Will Be First HPE-SGI Super

February 16, 2017

In a press event Friday afternoon local time in Japan, Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) announced its plans for the TSUBAME3.0 supercomputer, which will be Japan’s “fastest AI supercomputer,” Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Drug Developers Use Google Cloud HPC in the Fight Against ALS

February 16, 2017

Within the haystack of a lethal disease such as ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis / Lou Gehrig’s Disease) there exists, somewhere, the needle that will pierce this therapy-resistant affliction. Read more…

By Doug Black

Azure Edges AWS in Linpack Benchmark Study

February 15, 2017

The “when will clouds be ready for HPC” question has ebbed and flowed for years. Read more…

By John Russell

Is Liquid Cooling Ready to Go Mainstream?

February 13, 2017

Lost in the frenzy of SC16 was a substantial rise in the number of vendors showing server oriented liquid cooling technologies. Three decades ago liquid cooling was pretty much the exclusive realm of the Cray-2 and IBM mainframe class products. That’s changing. We are now seeing an emergence of x86 class server products with exotic plumbing technology ranging from Direct-to-Chip to servers and storage completely immersed in a dielectric fluid. Read more…

By Steve Campbell

For IBM/OpenPOWER: Success in 2017 = (Volume) Sales

January 11, 2017

To a large degree IBM and the OpenPOWER Foundation have done what they said they would – assembling a substantial and growing ecosystem and bringing Power-based products to market, all in about three years. Read more…

By John Russell

US, China Vie for Supercomputing Supremacy

November 14, 2016

The 48th edition of the TOP500 list is fresh off the presses and while there is no new number one system, as previously teased by China, there are a number of notable entrants from the US and around the world and significant trends to report on. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Lighting up Aurora: Behind the Scenes at the Creation of the DOE’s Upcoming 200 Petaflops Supercomputer

December 1, 2016

In April 2015, U.S. Department of Energy Undersecretary Franklin Orr announced that Intel would be the prime contractor for Aurora: Read more…

By Jan Rowell

D-Wave SC16 Update: What’s Bo Ewald Saying These Days

November 18, 2016

Tucked in a back section of the SC16 exhibit hall, quantum computing pioneer D-Wave has been talking up its new 2000-qubit processor announced in September. Forget for a moment the criticism sometimes aimed at D-Wave. This small Canadian company has sold several machines including, for example, ones to Lockheed and NASA, and has worked with Google on mapping machine learning problems to quantum computing. In July Los Alamos National Laboratory took possession of a 1000-quibit D-Wave 2X system that LANL ordered a year ago around the time of SC15. Read more…

By John Russell

Enlisting Deep Learning in the War on Cancer

December 7, 2016

Sometime in Q2 2017 the first ‘results’ of the Joint Design of Advanced Computing Solutions for Cancer (JDACS4C) will become publicly available according to Rick Stevens. He leads one of three JDACS4C pilot projects pressing deep learning (DL) into service in the War on Cancer. Read more…

By John Russell

IBM Wants to be “Red Hat” of Deep Learning

January 26, 2017

IBM today announced the addition of TensorFlow and Chainer deep learning frameworks to its PowerAI suite of deep learning tools, which already includes popular offerings such as Caffe, Theano, and Torch. Read more…

By John Russell

HPC Startup Advances Auto-Parallelization’s Promise

January 23, 2017

The shift from single core to multicore hardware has made finding parallelism in codes more important than ever, but that hasn’t made the task of parallel programming any easier. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Tokyo Tech’s TSUBAME3.0 Will Be First HPE-SGI Super

February 16, 2017

In a press event Friday afternoon local time in Japan, Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech) announced its plans for the TSUBAME3.0 supercomputer, which will be Japan’s “fastest AI supercomputer,” Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Leading Solution Providers

CPU Benchmarking: Haswell Versus POWER8

June 2, 2015

With OpenPOWER activity ramping up and IBM’s prominent role in the upcoming DOE machines Summit and Sierra, it’s a good time to look at how the IBM POWER CPU stacks up against the x86 Xeon Haswell CPU from Intel. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Nvidia Sees Bright Future for AI Supercomputing

November 23, 2016

Graphics chipmaker Nvidia made a strong showing at SC16 in Salt Lake City last week. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

BioTeam’s Berman Charts 2017 HPC Trends in Life Sciences

January 4, 2017

Twenty years ago high performance computing was nearly absent from life sciences. Today it’s used throughout life sciences and biomedical research. Genomics and the data deluge from modern lab instruments are the main drivers, but so is the longer-term desire to perform predictive simulation in support of Precision Medicine (PM). There’s even a specialized life sciences supercomputer, ‘Anton’ from D.E. Shaw Research, and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center is standing up its second Anton 2 and actively soliciting project proposals. There’s a lot going on. Read more…

By John Russell

TSUBAME3.0 Points to Future HPE Pascal-NVLink-OPA Server

February 17, 2017

Since our initial coverage of the TSUBAME3.0 supercomputer yesterday, more details have come to light on this innovative project. Of particular interest is a new board design for NVLink-equipped Pascal P100 GPUs that will create another entrant to the space currently occupied by Nvidia's DGX-1 system, IBM's "Minsky" platform and the Supermicro SuperServer (1028GQ-TXR). Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

IDG to Be Bought by Chinese Investors; IDC to Spin Out HPC Group

January 19, 2017

US-based publishing and investment firm International Data Group, Inc. (IDG) will be acquired by a pair of Chinese investors, China Oceanwide Holdings Group Co., Ltd. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Dell Knights Landing Machine Sets New STAC Records

November 2, 2016

The Securities Technology Analysis Center, commonly known as STAC, has released a new report characterizing the performance of the Knight Landing-based Dell PowerEdge C6320p server on the STAC-A2 benchmarking suite, widely used by the financial services industry to test and evaluate computing platforms. The Dell machine has set new records for both the baseline Greeks benchmark and the large Greeks benchmark. Read more…

By Tiffany Trader

Is Liquid Cooling Ready to Go Mainstream?

February 13, 2017

Lost in the frenzy of SC16 was a substantial rise in the number of vendors showing server oriented liquid cooling technologies. Three decades ago liquid cooling was pretty much the exclusive realm of the Cray-2 and IBM mainframe class products. That’s changing. We are now seeing an emergence of x86 class server products with exotic plumbing technology ranging from Direct-to-Chip to servers and storage completely immersed in a dielectric fluid. Read more…

By Steve Campbell

What Knights Landing Is Not

June 18, 2016

As we get ready to launch the newest member of the Intel Xeon Phi family, code named Knights Landing, it is natural that there be some questions and potentially some confusion. Read more…

By James Reinders, Intel

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
Share This