HPC Coding: The Power of L(o)osing Control

By Tobias Weinzierl

August 16, 2018

Presented is a summary of the ISC18 workshop “The power of l(o)osing control,” which asked the question: “when does a re-implementation of mature simulation fragments with novel HPC paradigms pay off?”

Exascale roadmaps, exascale projects and exascale lobbyists ask, on-again-off-again, for a fundamental rewrite of major code building blocks. Otherwise, so they claim, codes will not scale up. Naturally, some exascale projects bombard computational scientists with new domain-specific or domain-tailored languages, compiler extensions, frameworks, libraries and programming paradigms. The projects receive, in return, rewrites of simulation codes that are significantly faster. After a while. Or they get nothing at all, as users of the all the splendid new ideas find out that the proposed is not a fit to their requirements, the wheel of exascale innovations has already turned once more, or the rewrites have been that little bit more complex and more time-consuming than anticipated so that a complete rewrite finally became unfeasible. For our methodological evangelist, developing frameworks, languages, libraries, whatever would be such a joy, if only there were no or at least competent users . . .

The ISC18 workshop “The power of l(o)osing control”, organised by Tobias Weinzierl, did ask “when does a re-implementation of mature simulation fragments with novel HPC paradigms pay off?” More precisely, the organiser did ask “where is the pain barrier where consortia are willing to rewrite major code parts?”, “to which degree are mature simulation codes willing to give up control of SIMDsation, task scheduling, data placement, and so forth?” and “what information (arithmetic intensity, affinity, dependencies) should new paradigms expect their user codes to provide explicitly to frameworks?” Some answers to these questions from the workshop are summarised below. Even more questions did arise however.

I’m so sick of rewriting my code every time a new exascale project comes around the corner.   The workshop kicked off with historical remarks by Tobias. When his software base underlying the H2020 FETHPC project ExaHyPE [1] was first developed as a heroic green-field approach, caches and careful memory usage used to be the non plus ultra. So the code was made to support extremely dynamic and adaptive meshes. Soon after, vectorisation and multicores became headliners on the center stage. This made the developers rewrite significant code parts into regular data structures fitting to parallel fors—just to learn afterwards that task-based parallelism is the new kid on the block everybody loves most. Today, the code tasks. But the developers didn’t win that much in terms of productivity, as they now have to think about proper task sizes, task priorities, mapping of tasks to MPI calls, and so forth. They feel being caught in a never-ending rewrite of core code parts as hardware and programming paradigms evolve. The code at no point had been future-proof.

We took away their scheduling ownership, now we have to get their data structures.   The actual workshop followed this introduction. It featured six talks. Nathan Ellingwood from Sandia pointed out that their Kokkos project [2] started from a few heroic research code endeavours, too. It had been after that that they started to roll their ideas out as general-purpose ecosystem for legacy codes. One of Kokkos’ key techniques to obtain scaling code goes one step beyond the rewrites Tobias did complain about: They do not only provide parallel programming constructs. They also encourage the user to model their codes explicitly in terms of abstract data structures.

Nathan’s talk pointed out that working, i.e., scaling HPC DSLs and frameworks rely on data structures plus execution patterns. Teaming them up allows middleware or runtimes to deliver performance by choosing the right data structure realisation plus concurrency for the right platform. If we only focus on parallel programming constructs, it is, to some degree, not surprising if rewrites fail to deliver.

Thomas Fahringer discussed the rationale and lessons learned through the AllScale project [3]. He opened his presentation with the statement “I don’t believe in MPI+X+Y”. And notably, he doesn’t believe in task-based programming as the silver bullet for scalability either. Going one step beyond Nathan’s talk, he proposed to re-specify all codes in terms of their data structures plus concurrency, too, but to ask a compiler to derive the tasks and parallel constructs from hereon. The abstraction of data access plus data structure is not realised within a library or runtime, but made part of the actual translator. It can then rely on many complex code optimisation techniques such as the fusion of various parallel code regions. As such, “giving up control” is not a flaw, problem or challenge. Thomas: “It is a design principle.”

Richard Bower from Durham’s Institute of Computational Cosmology (ICC) seemed to be impressed by this idea. A team around him has written a major astrophysical SPH code from scratch. The new code SWIFT [4] expresses all of its data as small work items and formalises all work on these guys as tasks with dependencies. This green-field development allows their runtime to scale up. In a way, they seem also to rely on parallelism through parallel modelling of computations plus a formalisation of the used data structures. They just did it manually.

A controversial discussion broke off. How many data structures does a programming paradigm have to offer to allow scientists to write meaningful non-toy code? State-of-the-art physics combines all types of hierarchical meshes with FFTs, particle representations, and unstructured data sets. Or do sophisticated solutions always have to give the users the choice either to work with data structure specs plus tasks or solely parallel processing constructs? In this case, we would lose some of the academic purity of “giving up control”. Or do we need approaches where the user basically constructs her data structures? We did not find an answer, but it seems that thinking in tasks plus the data they work on is the right way to go: thinking only in terms of parallel fors or tasks doesn’t go far enough.

Garbage in, garbage out.   Michael Bader presented his Chameleon project [5] and added an interesting observation to this: In his work, compute nodes may steal tasks plus their data from other ranks upon demand. Michael was able to present impressive scalability. They show that stealing leverages MPI work imbalances. Coming back to the compiler vs. runtime, it seems that a conclusion whether work decomposition should be done statically or dynamically is nowhere near. There are so many great opportunities, if systems suddenly can freely distribute their tasks in a lightweight manner also beyond shared memory borders.

Richard’s endeavour computes proper work decompositions in regular intervals which can be issued by the user, while Thomas’ and Nathan’s tools take ownership of work distribution through abstract specifications of data structures. All approaches rely on the fact that the right level of concurrency is provided, and that proper heuristics—when does decomposition pay off, e.g.—do exist. As Daniel Weingaertner from the Universidade Federal do Paran`a in the audience pointed out: The art is exactly this, to hide technical details (load distribution but also tiny little parameters such as grain sizes or pinning) from the developer. And that’s where runtimes and compilers really can help. Otherwise, developers might provide garbage input data. Michael’s approach provided a useful additional dimension: His approach hinges on online performance measurements. If the conclusion holds that many compile-time, static tunings due to heuristics are doomed to fail with the complex machines we face today, his approach still will succeed. Exaggerated: There’s no such thing as garbage in (in terms of work decomposition), but there is garbage work distribution.

We use C/C++ to improve accessibility and then suffer from the language’s restrictions and syntactic overhead.   Any new programming model is worth developing if and only if there are users. And users have to be technically able to handle these models. Nathan’s, Richard’s, Thomas’ and Tobias’ approaches therefore all rely on C/C++. It seems that this language has finally become the ultimate to-be-used language. Bye, bye Fortran.

Harald Köstler kicked off his talk with “I have to say I’m surprised all people seem to use C++”. His refreshing talk was a tour de force through various studies on DSLs in HPC. They mainly orbit around stencil and multigrid codes. The ExaStencils/ExaSlang [6] project was one of them. Now, you might disagree with Harald that languages such as Scala or Lisp should be real candidates to program your next-generation-DSL—actually the majority of the audience first considered this to be a joke—but he made valid points: C++ templates are neither easy to maintain nor to use. Yet, most DSL extensions use generic meta programming. C++ itself is not a trivial, compact language. After all, it is way too generic to meet this goal. We consider it to be straightforward as we all are used to it, but how many young students bring along the right mastery of C++ already? Finally, just start to dream about opportunities that arise once you accept that you can use Just-In-Time compilation for example or stricter type checking. Indeed, Thomas had dropped an argument along these lines before: Compilers can contextualise code and tailor it to a situation. And if they fail due to a lack of information, they can at least let the user know that they’d prefer some more annotations, e.g. He admitted that compiling and understanding C++ was a painful exercise in AllScale. So maybe C++ is not the ultimate thing after all?

These computational scientists should be forced to rewrite everything from scratch from time to time anyway—this makes them tidy up their codes.  Richard and Tobias both gave talks on bigger pieces of software. While Tobias follows an incremental approach where core routines are replaced when new technologies emerge, Richard’s endeavour is a complete rewrite of well-established physics and algorithms with a task paradigm. With Tobias being unhappy about the zombie of rewrites—they never go away—it was natural to ask Richard: was it worth it?

This is a delicate question, as obviously it took his team quite a while to deliver the new code base. This is time “lost” for “actual” science. However, he came to the conclusion that it has been worth it nevertheless. It is easy to say this once your code is up and scaling, but Richard pointed out that there are two further success implications: His team has learned a lot about software. And his team has cleaned up the code.

Whenever one starts a complete rewrite, it is very human and convenient to sit down, and try to strip a code design off its historic ballast. Complete rewrites (triggering re-thinks) improve the code quality. It is however, as Richard pointed out, almost sad to recognise that interfaces then grow and become more complex again. You start with a neat, clean design and you end up again with a complex piece of code.

The Swiss army knife is just yet another framework.  The audience just started to digest Harald’s preferences for esoteric languages, when he confessed another thing: As far as he observes, most successful DSLs rely on fast and successful libraries under the hood. So the DSL’s job is not to come up with the performance. In most projects, it is its jobs to make the performance available to the user. Nathan had clarified before that Kokkos relies on BLAS et al., while Thomas’ talk did support this impression, too: His compiler also relies on libraries for performance-critical tasks. These observations relax the burden of scalability for DSLs.

In this context, Martin Kronbichler collected some ideas and lessons learned how to make a general-purpose library underlying many different codes perform. His work around deal.II [7] focuses on particular mesh types with “only” particular mesh entities and tensor-product styles, while deal.II provides manufactured data iterators and operators for popular operations. deal.II might not be a classic DSL, as it is very versatile. However, his work on purpose exploits particular characteristics and specialisations to get the whole thing fast.

Richard’s observation that their task system is tailored towards their particular application started some arguments around the question “what is a framework”? Many frameworks or libraries are probably not worth calling them that way, as they are effectively written for one particular purpose. Their programmers might claim that they are generic—they are computer scientists after all—but, at the end of the day, what they call frameworks simply realise plain functional decomposition. Different components in one piece of software do different things.

It was not clear among the workshop participants to which degree frameworks and DSLs had to be generic. Even the other way round, one might come to the conclusion that frameworks have to grow and evolve with their applications and deliver exactly the level of flexibility an actual project needs. Richard and Harald for example pointed out that they both look into structured vs. unstructured data structures or the decision when to store data as AoS or SoA. Some evergreens never disappear.

A few more implications from this project-framework co-design approach were discussed next: Richard clarified that starting from scratch is the easy part. The difficult part is to stop. Once a team has written component i itself—this will be the ultimate fit to the project— there is this temptation to write component i+1 as well. We did it for the mesh, why not also write our own load balancing? And the load balancing worked out really well (indeed it is an exact fit to our project though we are not really competitive with state-of-the-art libraries), wouldn’t it be clever to come up with our own few linear equation system solvers? And so forth . . . Perhaps the framework hasn’t been there in the first place. It grew and noone told it to stop. If this were the case, the term framework would describe a flaw rather than a cool computer science thing.

Come on, love me for the money.  Let’s forget about such heretic ideas and close the discussion with two observations. The first one was made by Richard and explicitly stated by Nathan: Their ecosystems started to flourish once they provided the right tools. Task graph plotters for task-based systems are an example. The best concept might be hard to digest if you don’t give developers the right tools that allow them to develop economically. The Kokkos and the deal.II team added the second mandatory ingredient for success: a reasonable user base and active engagement with that very base.

Both items highlight that continuous, long-term funding is essential for a successful introduction of (exascale) programming paradigms, runtimes, DSLs, compilers and frameworks. Consortia need the time and resources to build up a development ecosystem around any new programming concept and to equip them with the right tools. Establishing this does not materialise in immediate scientific output, and, at the same time, it has to start way before actual computational science can be made through a new paradigm. Well, finally there had been broad agreement among all workshop participants: The establishment of a community and ecosystem is something that requires resources, but it neither fits to standard projects of short and medium duration, nor to our project notion, which has to start from the computational challenge. In an ideal world, the ecosystem has to be there before to allow application specialists to assess it and to move into a mature environment to solve “their” problem. There should thus be more funding for the ecosystem not tied to particular application research questions.

About the Author

Tobias Weinzierl is Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Science at Durham University. His work orbits around novel algorithms and clever implementations for applications from scientific computing which employ state-of-the-art physics and mathematics. At the moment, his research focuses mainly on data flow/movement (minimisation), data structure (organisation) and programming paradigm challenges. He is particularly interested in dynamically adaptive multiscale methods based upon spacetrees that interact with multigrid solvers for elliptic and parabolic partial differential equations, that host particle systems with particles of varying cut-off radii or size, or carry Finite Volume-alike discretisations. He is involved in multiple scientific open source projects such as ExaHyPE [1] and Peano [8].

References
[1] ExaHyPE—an Exascale Hyperbolic PDE Engine. http://exahype.eu
[2] Kokkos—The C++ Performance Portability Programming Model. https://github.com/kokkos/kokkos/wiki
[3] AllScale—An Exascale Programming, Multi-objective Optimisation and Resilience Management Environment Based on Nested Recursive Parallelism. http://www.allscale.eu
[4] SWIFT—SPH With Inter-dependent Fine-grain Tasking. http://icc.dur.ac.uk/swift
[5] Chameleon—Eine Taskbasierte Programmierumgebung zur Entwicklung reaktiver HPC Anwendungen. http://www.chameleon-hpc.org
[6] Exastencils—Advanced Stencil-Code Engineering. http://www.exastencils.org
[7] deal.II—an open source finite element library. https://www.dealii.org
[8] Peano—a framework for dynamically adaptive Cartesian meshes. http://www.peanoframework.org

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!

With New Owner and New Roadmap, an Independent Omni-Path Is Staging a Comeback

July 23, 2021

Put on a shelf by Intel in 2019, Omni-Path faced a uncertain future, but under new custodian Cornelis Networks, OmniPath is looking to make a comeback as an independent high-performance interconnect solution. A "significant refresh" – called Omni-Path Express – is coming later this year according to the company. Cornelis Networks formed last September as a spinout of Intel's Omni-Path division. Read more…

PEARC21 Panel Reviews Eight New NSF-Funded HPC Systems Debuting in 2021

July 23, 2021

Over the past few years, the NSF has funded a number of HPC systems to further supply the open research community with computational resources to meet that community’s changing and expanding needs. A review of these systems at the PEARC21 conference (July 19-22) highlighted... Read more…

Chameleon’s HPC Testbed Sharpens Its Edge, Presses ‘Replay’

July 22, 2021

“One way of saying what I do for a living is to say that I develop scientific instruments,” said Kate Keahey, a senior fellow at the University of Chicago and a computer scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, as s Read more…

PEARC21 Plenary Session: AI for Innovative Social Work

July 21, 2021

AI analysis of social media poses a double-edged sword for social work and addressing the needs of at-risk youths, said Desmond Upton Patton, senior associate dean, Innovation and Academic Affairs, Columbia University. S Read more…

Summer Reading: “High-Performance Computing Is at an Inflection Point”

July 21, 2021

At last month’s 11th International Symposium on Highly Efficient Accelerators and Reconfigurable Technologies (HEART), a group of researchers led by Martin Schulz of the Leibniz Supercomputing Center (Munich) presented a “position paper” in which they argue HPC architectural landscape... Read more…

AWS Solution Channel

Accelerate innovation in healthcare and life sciences with AWS HPC

With Amazon Web Services, researchers can access purpose-built HPC tools and services along with scientific and technical expertise to accelerate the pace of discovery. Whether you are sequencing the human genome, using AI/ML for disease detection or running molecular dynamics simulations to develop lifesaving drugs, AWS has the infrastructure you need to run your HPC workloads. Read more…

PEARC21 Panel: Wafer-Scale-Engine Technology Accelerates Machine Learning, HPC

July 21, 2021

Early use of Cerebras’ CS-1 server and wafer-scale engine (WSE) has demonstrated promising acceleration of machine-learning algorithms, according to participants in the Scientific Research Enabled by CS-1 Systems panel Read more…

With New Owner and New Roadmap, an Independent Omni-Path Is Staging a Comeback

July 23, 2021

Put on a shelf by Intel in 2019, Omni-Path faced a uncertain future, but under new custodian Cornelis Networks, OmniPath is looking to make a comeback as an independent high-performance interconnect solution. A "significant refresh" – called Omni-Path Express – is coming later this year according to the company. Cornelis Networks formed last September as a spinout of Intel's Omni-Path division. Read more…

Chameleon’s HPC Testbed Sharpens Its Edge, Presses ‘Replay’

July 22, 2021

“One way of saying what I do for a living is to say that I develop scientific instruments,” said Kate Keahey, a senior fellow at the University of Chicago a Read more…

Summer Reading: “High-Performance Computing Is at an Inflection Point”

July 21, 2021

At last month’s 11th International Symposium on Highly Efficient Accelerators and Reconfigurable Technologies (HEART), a group of researchers led by Martin Schulz of the Leibniz Supercomputing Center (Munich) presented a “position paper” in which they argue HPC architectural landscape... Read more…

PEARC21 Panel: Wafer-Scale-Engine Technology Accelerates Machine Learning, HPC

July 21, 2021

Early use of Cerebras’ CS-1 server and wafer-scale engine (WSE) has demonstrated promising acceleration of machine-learning algorithms, according to participa Read more…

15 Years Later, the Green500 Continues Its Push for Energy Efficiency as a First-Order Concern in HPC

July 15, 2021

The Green500 list, which ranks the most energy-efficient supercomputers in the world, has virtually always faced an uphill battle. As Wu Feng – custodian of the Green500 list and an associate professor at Virginia Tech – tells it, “noone" cared about energy efficiency in the early 2000s, when the seeds... Read more…

Frontier to Meet 20MW Exascale Power Target Set by DARPA in 2008

July 14, 2021

After more than a decade of planning, the United States’ first exascale computer, Frontier, is set to arrive at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) later this year. Crossing this “1,000x” horizon required overcoming four major challenges: power demand, reliability, extreme parallelism and data movement. Read more…

Quantum Roundup: IBM, Rigetti, Phasecraft, Oxford QC, China, and More

July 13, 2021

IBM yesterday announced a proof for a quantum ML algorithm. A week ago, it unveiled a new topology for its quantum processors. Last Friday, the Technical Univer Read more…

ExaWind Prepares for New Architectures, Bigger Simulations

July 10, 2021

The ExaWind project describes itself in terms of terms like wake formation, turbine-turbine interaction and blade-boundary-layer dynamics, but the pitch to the Read more…

AMD Chipmaker TSMC to Use AMD Chips for Chipmaking

May 8, 2021

TSMC has tapped AMD to support its major manufacturing and R&D workloads. AMD will provide its Epyc Rome 7702P CPUs – with 64 cores operating at a base cl Read more…

Intel Launches 10nm ‘Ice Lake’ Datacenter CPU with Up to 40 Cores

April 6, 2021

The wait is over. Today Intel officially launched its 10nm datacenter CPU, the third-generation Intel Xeon Scalable processor, codenamed Ice Lake. With up to 40 Read more…

Berkeley Lab Debuts Perlmutter, World’s Fastest AI Supercomputer

May 27, 2021

A ribbon-cutting ceremony held virtually at Berkeley Lab's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) today marked the official launch of Perlmutter – aka NERSC-9 – the GPU-accelerated supercomputer built by HPE in partnership with Nvidia and AMD. Read more…

Ahead of ‘Dojo,’ Tesla Reveals Its Massive Precursor Supercomputer

June 22, 2021

In spring 2019, Tesla made cryptic reference to a project called Dojo, a “super-powerful training computer” for video data processing. Then, in summer 2020, Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted: “Tesla is developing a [neural network] training computer called Dojo to process truly vast amounts of video data. It’s a beast! … A truly useful exaflop at de facto FP32.” Read more…

Google Launches TPU v4 AI Chips

May 20, 2021

Google CEO Sundar Pichai spoke for only one minute and 42 seconds about the company’s latest TPU v4 Tensor Processing Units during his keynote at the Google I Read more…

CentOS Replacement Rocky Linux Is Now in GA and Under Independent Control

June 21, 2021

The Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation (RESF) is announcing the general availability of Rocky Linux, release 8.4, designed as a drop-in replacement for the soon-to-be discontinued CentOS. The GA release is launching six-and-a-half months after Red Hat deprecated its support for the widely popular, free CentOS server operating system. The Rocky Linux development effort... Read more…

CERN Is Betting Big on Exascale

April 1, 2021

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) involves 23 countries, 15,000 researchers, billions of dollars a year, and the biggest machine in the worl Read more…

Iran Gains HPC Capabilities with Launch of ‘Simorgh’ Supercomputer

May 18, 2021

Iran is said to be developing domestic supercomputing technology to advance the processing of scientific, economic, political and military data, and to strengthen the nation’s position in the age of AI and big data. On Sunday, Iran unveiled the Simorgh supercomputer, which will deliver.... Read more…

Leading Solution Providers

Contributors

HPE Launches Storage Line Loaded with IBM’s Spectrum Scale File System

April 6, 2021

HPE today launched a new family of storage solutions bundled with IBM’s Spectrum Scale Erasure Code Edition parallel file system (description below) and featu Read more…

Julia Update: Adoption Keeps Climbing; Is It a Python Challenger?

January 13, 2021

The rapid adoption of Julia, the open source, high level programing language with roots at MIT, shows no sign of slowing according to data from Julialang.org. I Read more…

10nm, 7nm, 5nm…. Should the Chip Nanometer Metric Be Replaced?

June 1, 2020

The biggest cool factor in server chips is the nanometer. AMD beating Intel to a CPU built on a 7nm process node* – with 5nm and 3nm on the way – has been i Read more…

GTC21: Nvidia Launches cuQuantum; Dips a Toe in Quantum Computing

April 13, 2021

Yesterday Nvidia officially dipped a toe into quantum computing with the launch of cuQuantum SDK, a development platform for simulating quantum circuits on GPU-accelerated systems. As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang emphasized in his keynote, Nvidia doesn’t plan to build... Read more…

Microsoft to Provide World’s Most Powerful Weather & Climate Supercomputer for UK’s Met Office

April 22, 2021

More than 14 months ago, the UK government announced plans to invest £1.2 billion ($1.56 billion) into weather and climate supercomputing, including procuremen Read more…

Q&A with Jim Keller, CTO of Tenstorrent, and an HPCwire Person to Watch in 2021

April 22, 2021

As part of our HPCwire Person to Watch series, we are happy to present our interview with Jim Keller, president and chief technology officer of Tenstorrent. One of the top chip architects of our time, Keller has had an impactful career. Read more…

Quantum Roundup: IBM, Rigetti, Phasecraft, Oxford QC, China, and More

July 13, 2021

IBM yesterday announced a proof for a quantum ML algorithm. A week ago, it unveiled a new topology for its quantum processors. Last Friday, the Technical Univer Read more…

Senate Debate on Bill to Remake NSF – the Endless Frontier Act – Begins

May 18, 2021

The U.S. Senate today opened floor debate on the Endless Frontier Act which seeks to remake and expand the National Science Foundation by creating a technology Read more…

  • arrow
  • Click Here for More Headlines
  • arrow
HPCwire