DOCSLIB.ORG

On Ordering Problems in Message Passing Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Ordering Problems in Message Passing Software On Ordering Problems in Message Passing Software Yuheng Long Mehdi Bagherzadeh Eric Lin Ganesha Upadhyaya Hridesh Rajan Iowa State University, USA {csgzlong,mbagherz,eylin,ganeshau,hridesh}@iastate.edu Abstract model. Use of Erlang [5] in the development of Amazon The need for concurrency in modern software is increas- Web Services and Akka [4] in the Guardian’s web site are ingly fulfilled by utilizing the message passing paradigm be- just a few examples of such interest. cause of its modularity and scalability. In the message pass- The message passing paradigm allows for modular devel- ing paradigm, concurrently running processes communicate opment [3, 26] and reasoning [6, 18, 27] of its programs. In by sending and receiving messages. Asynchronous messag- the message passing paradigm, a module (process) commu- ing introduces the possibility of message ordering problems: nicates with other concurrently running processes by send- two messages with a specific order in the program text could ing and receiving messages. For enhanced throughput, these take effect in the opposite order in the program execution and messages are usually sent asynchronously [3, 4]. However, lead to bugs that are hard to find and debug. We believe that asynchronous sending of messages introduces the possibil- the engineering of message passing software could be easier ity of ordering problems that we call the message ordering if more is known about the characteristics of message order- problem and makes development of message passing soft- ing problems in practice. In this work, we present an analysis ware difficult and error-prone. In an ordering problem, two to study and quantify the relation between ordering problems messages with a specific sequential order in the program text and semantics variations of their underlying message pass- could take effect in the opposite order in the program exe- ing paradigm in over 30 applications. Some of our findings cution. Previous work [12, 24, 30, 47] shows that ordering are as follows: (1) semantic variations of the message passing problems are prevalent and could lead to bugs that are hard paradigm can cause ordering problems exhibited by applica- to find and debug. A bug usually happens when a program- tions in different programming patterns to vary greatly; (2) mer, based on the program text, assumes a message order some semantic features such as in-order messaging are criti- which may not actually exist during the program execution. cal for reducing ordering problems; (3) modular enforcement 1 class Client extends Actor { 2 ActorName server; .. of aliasing in terms of data isolation allows small test con- 3 @message void start() { figurations to trigger the majority of ordering problems. 4 send(server, "set", 1);// async message send 5 int v = send(server, "get");// async message send Categories and Subject Descriptors D.1.3 [Programming 6 assert(v == 1);// assertion Φ 7 } .. Techniques]: Concurrent Programming — Distributed pro- 8 } gramming;D.3.3[Programming Languages]:Language Con- Figure 1: A message ordering problem happens when using structs and Features—Concurrent programming structures the program text, on lines 4–5, a programmer mistakenly Keywords Message passing, quantification of message or- assumes that the asynchronous message set is sent and dering problems, asynchronous messages processed before get, causing a real world bug [24]. To illustrate, Figure 1 – written in the message passing 1. Introduction programming language ActorFoundry [1] – shows a simpli- The concurrency revolution [45] has renewed interest in fied version of a real world bug [24] caused by a message or- the message passing paradigm [2] because of its modular dering problem. A Client process (actor), sends an asyn- [3, 6, 18, 26, 27] and scalable [48] concurrent programming chronous message set to a server process, on line 4, to set the value of a variable in the server to 1. Later, the client sends another asynchronous message get, on line 5, to read the value of the variable in the server. Because sending of the set message appears before sending of the get message in the program text, it is very likely [12, 24, 30, 47] that a sequentially-trained programmer assumes that the set mes- sage is sent and processed in the server before the get mes- [Copyright notice will appear here once ’preprint’ option is removed.] sage and therefore get reads the value 1 set by set and the assertion Φ holds; and this is exactly what the programmer To further illustrate semantic tuning, Akka configurations assumes in this example [24, 47]. However, the execution of allow a programmer to configure and run a program with the program could surprise the programmer by causing a bug either asynchronous or synchronous messaging for C1. For and violation of Φ. This is because, depending on the mes- C2, ActorFoundry and HAL constraints [19] allow config- saging semantics of ActorFoundry, set and get messages urations of both nondeterministic and in-order message de- could during program execution be received and processed livery and processing. For C3, Kilim annotations [43] allow by the server in an order which is the opposite of their ap- configurations for both data sharing and isolation. pearance order in the program text in the client. This in turn 1.1.2 Semantic Diversity in Multiple Paradigms causes the get message to return a value that may not be There are several message passing programming languages equal to 1 and therefore cause a bug and violate Φ. This bug and frameworks available with different semantics for C1– happens because, based on the program text, the programmer C3. Such semantic diversity could make it difficult to un- mistakenly assumes an ordering (in-order delivery and pro- derstand and avoid message ordering problems, especially cessing) between set and get messages that may not exist when a program with no ordering problems in one paradigm during the program execution, depending on the semantics may suffer from ordering problems in another paradigm [39] of the message send operation. and vice versa. For example, deprecation of Scala Actor [17] 1.1 Root Causes of Message Ordering Problems message passing paradigm and its evolution into Akka may We believe that the semantic variations of the following 3 require a programmer to migrate their program from Scala criteria in the message passing paradigm are the root causes Actor to Akka with cautionary warnings like: of message ordering problems: “Due to differences between the two actor implementations it is possible that errors appear. It is recommended to thoroughly test • C1: Message synchronization semantics, categorized into the code after each step of the migration process.” — The Scala asynchronous and synchronous messaging [22]. Actors Migration Guide [39] • C2: Message processing semantics, categorized into non- There is no guarantee that a program in Scala Actor with deterministic and in-order delivery and processing. no ordering problems will have no ordering problems when migrated to Akka. • C3: Sharing semantics, categorized into data sharing and To illustrate the semantic diversity, Scala [16] and Panini data isolation of memory effects between processes. [37, 38] support both asynchronous and synchronous mes- In addition to semantic variations of C1–C3, two other fac- saging for C1 whereas Erlang [5] and standard actor tors could make it harder for a programmer to understand model only support asynchronous messaging. For C2, Ac- and avoid message ordering problems: (1) semantic tuning torFoundry messages are delivered and could be processed of the underlying message passing paradigm of a single pro- nondeterministically whereas Akka and JCoBox [40] sup- gram and (2) diversity of semantic variations that are avail- port in-order delivery and processing. For C3, the standard able for the message passing paradigm. actor model supports data isolation between processes, Scala 1.1.1 Semantic Tuning in a Single Paradigm allows sharing and ActorFoundry supports both. 1.2 Understanding Message Ordering Problems There are message passing languages and frameworks, such as Akka [4], that allow the programmer to configure vari- On the one hand, the concurrency revolution requires ous semantics for C1–C3 in the underlying message passing sequentially-trained programmers that mostly think sequen- paradigm of a single program. Such semantic tuning could tially [30] to write concurrent programs in the message make message ordering problems harder to understand and passing paradigm, which is a modular concurrent program- avoid: a program that is free from message ordering prob- ming model with increasing popularity. On the other hand, lems in one configuration may suffer from ordering prob- the message ordering problems make programming in this lems in another configuration. paradigm difficult and error-prone [24, 47] for these pro- For example, suppose the code in Figure 1 was written grammers [30, 45]. We believe that the engineering of mes- in Akka instead of ActorFoundry. Akka allows the program- sage passing software could be easier if we know more about mer to configure the message synchronization semantics of the characteristics of message ordering problems in practice. send and to change it from the default asynchronous messag- This makes it critical to study and understand the relation be- ing to synchronous. Such configuration of message synchro- tween the semantics of a message passing paradigm and the nization semantics takes original program with a message ordering problems
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Efficient Inter-Core Communications on Manycore Machines
    ZIMP: Efficient Inter-core Communications on Manycore Machines Pierre-Louis Aublin Sonia Ben Mokhtar Gilles Muller Vivien Quema´ Grenoble University CNRS - LIRIS INRIA CNRS - LIG Abstract—Modern computers have an increasing num- nication mechanisms enabling both one-to-one and one- ber of cores and, as exemplified by the recent Barrelfish to-many communications. Current operating systems operating system, the software they execute increasingly provide various inter-core communication mechanisms. resembles distributed, message-passing systems. To sup- port this evolution, there is a need for very efficient However it is not clear yet how these mechanisms be- inter-core communication mechanisms. Current operat- have on manycore processors, especially when messages ing systems provide various inter-core communication are intended to many recipient cores. mechanisms, but it is not clear yet how they behave In this report, we study seven communication mech- on manycore processors. In this report, we study seven anisms, which are considered state-of-the-art. More mechanisms, that are considered state-of-the-art. We show that these mechanisms have two main drawbacks that precisely, we study TCP, UDP and Unix domain sock- limit their efficiency: they perform costly memory copy ets, pipes, IPC and POSIX message queues. These operations and they do not provide efficient support mechanisms are supported by traditional operating sys- for one-to-many communications. We do thus propose tems such as Linux. We also study Barrelfish message ZIMP, a new inter-core communication mechanism that passing, the inter-process communication mechanism of implements zero-copy inter-core message communications and that efficiently handles one-to-many communications.
    [Show full text]
  • D-Bus, the Message Bus System Training Material
    Maemo Diablo D-Bus, The Message Bus System Training Material February 9, 2009 Contents 1 D-Bus, The Message Bus System 2 1.1 Introduction to D-Bus ......................... 2 1.2 D-Bus architecture and terminology ................ 3 1.3 Addressing and names in D-Bus .................. 4 1.4 Role of D-Bus in maemo ....................... 6 1.5 Programming directly with libdbus ................. 9 1 Chapter 1 D-Bus, The Message Bus System 1.1 Introduction to D-Bus D-Bus (the D originally stood for "Desktop") is a relatively new inter process communication (IPC) mechanism designed to be used as a unified middleware layer in free desktop environments. Some example projects where D-Bus is used are GNOME and Hildon. Compared to other middleware layers for IPC, D-Bus lacks many of the more refined (and complicated) features and for that reason, is faster and simpler. D-Bus does not directly compete with low level IPC mechanisms like sock- ets, shared memory or message queues. Each of these mechanisms have their uses, which normally do not overlap the ones in D-Bus. Instead, D-Bus aims to provide higher level functionality, like: Structured name spaces • Architecture independent data formatting • Support for the most common data elements in messages • A generic remote call interface with support for exceptions (errors) • A generic signalling interface to support "broadcast" type communication • Clear separation of per-user and system-wide scopes, which is important • when dealing with multi-user systems Not bound to any specific programming language (while providing a • design that readily maps to most higher level languages, via language specific bindings) The design of D-Bus benefits from the long experience of using other mid- dleware IPC solutions in the desktop arena and this has allowed the design to be optimised.
    [Show full text]
  • Message Passing Model
    Message Passing Model Giuseppe Anastasi [email protected] Pervasive Computing & Networking Lab. (PerLab) Dept. of Information Engineering, University of Pisa PerLab Based on original slides by Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne Overview PerLab Message Passing Model Addressing Synchronization Example of IPC systems Message Passing Model 2 Operating Systems Objectives PerLab To introduce an alternative solution (to shared memory) for process cooperation To show pros and cons of message passing vs. shared memory To show some examples of message-based communication systems Message Passing Model 3 Operating Systems Inter-Process Communication (IPC) PerLab Message system – processes communicate with each other without resorting to shared variables. IPC facility provides two operations: send (message ) – fixed or variable message size receive (message ) If P and Q wish to communicate, they need to: establish a communication link between them exchange messages via send/receive The communication link is provided by the OS Message Passing Model 4 Operating Systems Implementation Issues PerLab Physical implementation Single-processor system Shared memory Multi-processor systems Hardware bus Distributed systems Networking System + Communication networks Message Passing Model 5 Operating Systems Implementation Issues PerLab Logical properties Can a link be associated with more than two processes? How many links can there be between every pair of communicating processes? What is the capacity of a link? Is the size of a message that the link can accommodate fixed or variable? Is a link unidirectional or bi-directional? Message Passing Model 6 Operating Systems Implementation Issues PerLab Other Aspects Addressing Synchronization Buffering Message Passing Model 7 Operating Systems Overview PerLab Message Passing Model Addressing Synchronization Example of IPC systems Message Passing Model 8 Operating Systems Direct Addressing PerLab Processes must name each other explicitly.
    [Show full text]
  • Message Passing
    COS 318: Operating Systems Message Passing Jaswinder Pal Singh Computer Science Department Princeton University (http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/cos318/) Sending A Message Within A Computer Across A Network P1 P2 Send() Recv() Send() Recv() Network OS Kernel OS OS COS461 2 Synchronous Message Passing (Within A System) Synchronous send: u Call send system call with M u send system call: l No buffer in kernel: block send( M ) recv( M ) l Copy M to kernel buffer Synchronous recv: u Call recv system call M u recv system call: l No M in kernel: block l Copy to user buffer How to manage kernel buffer? 3 API Issues u Message S l Buffer (addr) and size l Message type, buffer and size u Destination or source send(dest, msg) R l Direct address: node Id, process Id l Indirect address: mailbox, socket, recv(src, msg) channel, … 4 Direct Addressing Example Producer(){ Consumer(){ ... ... while (1) { for (i=0; i<N; i++) produce item; send(Producer, credit); recv(Consumer, &credit); while (1) { send(Consumer, item); recv(Producer, &item); } send(Producer, credit); } consume item; } } u Does this work? u Would it work with multiple producers and 1 consumer? u Would it work with 1 producer and multiple consumers? u What about multiple producers and multiple consumers? 5 Indirect Addressing Example Producer(){ Consumer(){ ... ... while (1) { for (i=0; i<N; i++) produce item; send(prodMbox, credit); recv(prodMbox, &credit); while (1) { send(consMbox, item); recv(consMbox, &item); } send(prodMbox, credit); } consume item; } } u Would it work with multiple producers and 1 consumer? u Would it work with 1 producer and multiple consumers? u What about multiple producers and multiple consumers? 6 Indirect Communication u Names l mailbox, socket, channel, … u Properties l Some allow one-to-one mbox (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiprocess Communication and Control Software for Humanoid Robots Neil T
    IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine Multiprocess Communication and Control Software for Humanoid Robots Neil T. Dantam∗ Daniel M. Lofaroy Ayonga Hereidx Paul Y. Ohz Aaron D. Amesx Mike Stilman∗ I. Introduction orrect real-time software is vital for robots in safety-critical roles such as service and disaster response. These systems depend on software for Clocomotion, navigation, manipulation, and even seemingly innocuous tasks such as safely regulating battery voltage. A multi-process software design increases robustness by isolating errors to a single process, allowing the rest of the system to continue operating. This approach also assists with modularity and concurrency. For real-time tasks such as dynamic balance and force control of manipulators, it is critical to communicate the latest data sample with minimum latency. There are many communication approaches intended for both general purpose and real-time needs [19], [17], [13], [9], [15]. Typical methods focus on reliable communication or network-transparency and accept a trade-off of increased mes- sage latency or the potential to discard newer data. By focusing instead on the specific case of real-time communication on a single host, we reduce communication latency and guarantee access to the latest sample. We present a new Interprocess Communication (IPC) library, Ach,1 which addresses this need, and discuss its application for real-time, multiprocess control on three humanoid robots (Fig. 1). There are several design decisions that influenced this robot software and motivated development of the Ach library. First, to utilize decades of prior development and engineering, we implement our real-time system on top of a POSIX-like Operating System (OS)2.
    [Show full text]
  • Message Passing
    Message passing CS252 • Sending of messages under control of programmer – User-level/system level? Graduate Computer Architecture – Bulk transfers? Lecture 24 • How efficient is it to send and receive messages? – Speed of memory bus? First-level cache? Network Interface Design • Communication Model: Memory Consistency Models – Synchronous » Send completes after matching recv and source data sent » Receive completes after data transfer complete from matching send – Asynchronous Prof John D. Kubiatowicz » Send completes after send buffer may be reused http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kubitron/cs252 4/27/2009 cs252-S09, Lecture 24 2 Synchronous Message Passing Asynch. Message Passing: Optimistic Source Destination Source Destination (1) Initiate send Recv Psrc, local VA, len (1) Initiate send (2) Address translation on Psrc Send Pdest, local VA, len (2) Address translation (3) Local/remote check Send (P , local VA, len) (3) Local/remote check dest (4) Send-ready request Send-rdy req (4) Send data (5) Remote check for (5) Remote check for posted receive; on fail, Tag match allocate data buffer posted receive Wait Tag check Data-xfer req (assume success) Processor Allocate buffer Action? (6) Reply transaction Recv-rdy reply (7) Bulk data transfer Source VA Dest VA or ID Recv P , local VA, len Time src Data-xfer req Time • More powerful programming model • Constrained programming model. • Wildcard receive => non-deterministic • Deterministic! What happens when threads added? • Destination contention very limited. • Storage required within msg layer? • User/System boundary? 4/27/2009 cs252-S09, Lecture 24 3 4/27/2009 cs252-S09, Lecture 24 4 Asynch. Msg Passing: Conservative Features of Msg Passing Abstraction Destination • Source knows send data address, dest.
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Process Communication
    QNX Inter-Process Communication QNX IPC 2008/01/08 R08 © 2006 QNX Software Systems. QNX and Momentics are registered trademarks of QNX Software Systems in certain jurisdictions NOTES: QNX, Momentics, Neutrino, Photon microGUI, and “Build a more reliable world” are registered trademarks in certain jurisdictions, and PhAB, Phindows, and Qnet are trademarks of QNX Software Systems Ltd. All other trademarks and trade names belong to their respective owners. 1 IntroductionIntroduction IPC: • Inter-Process Communication • two processes exchange: – data – control – notification of event occurrence IPC Thread Thread Process A Process B QNX IPC 2008/01/08 R08 2 © 2006, QNX Software Systems. QNX and Momentics are registered trademarks of QNX Software Systems in certain jurisdictions NOTES: 2 IntroductionIntroduction QNX Neutrino supports a wide variety of IPC: – QNX Core (API is unique to QNX or low-level) • includes: – QNX Neutrino messaging – QNX Neutrino pulses – shared memory – QNX asynchronous messaging • the focus of this course module – POSIX/Unix (well known, portable API’s ) • includes: – signals – shared memory – pipes (requires pipe process) – POSIX message queues (requires mqueue or mq process) – TCP/IP sockets (requires io-net process) • the focus of the POSIX IPC course module QNX IPC 2008/01/08 R08 3 © 2006, QNX Software Systems. QNX and Momentics are registered trademarks of QNX Software Systems in certain jurisdictions NOTES: API: Application Programming Interface 3 InterprocessInterprocess Communication Communication Topics: Message Passing Designing a Message Passing System (1) Pulses How a Client Finds a Server Server Cleanup Multi-Part Messages Designing a Message Passing System (2) Client Information Structure Issues Related to Priorities Designing a Message Passing System (3) Event Delivery Asynchronous Message Passing QNET Shared Memory Conclusion QNX IPC 2008/01/08 R08 4 © 2006, QNX Software Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Interprocess Communication
    COMP 242 Class Notes Section 3: Interprocess Communication 1 Interprocess Communication Readings: Chapter 7, Comer. An operating system provides interprocess communication to allow processes to exchange informa- tion. Interprocess communication is useful for creating cooperating processes. For instance an ‘ls’ process and a ‘more’ process can cooperate to produce a paged listing of a directory. There are several mechanisms for interprocess communication. We discuss some of these below. 1.1 Shared Memory Processes that share memory can exchange data by writing and reading shared variables. As an example, consider two processes p and q that share some variable s. Then p can communicate information to q by writing new data in s, which q can then read. The above discussion raises an important question. How does q know when p writes new information into s? In some cases, q does not need to know. For instance, if it is a load balancing program that simply looks at the current load in p’s machine stored in s. When it does need to know, it could poll, but polling puts undue burden on the cpu. Another possibility is that it could get a software interrupt, which we discuss below. A familiar alternative is to use semaphores or conditions. Process q could block till p changes s and sends a signal that unblocks q. However, these solutions would not allow q to (automatically) block if s cannot hold all the data it wants to write. (The programmer could manually implement a bounded buffer using semaphores.) Moreover, conventional shared memory is accessed by processes on a single machine, so it cannot be used for communicating information among remote processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Memory Introduction
    12 Shared Memory Introduction 12.1 Introduction Shared memory is the fastest form of IPC available. Once the memory is mapped into the address space of the processes that are sharing the memory region, no kernel involvement occurs in passing data between the processes. What is normally required, however, is some form of synchronization between the processes that are storing and fetching information to and from the shared memory region. In Part 3, we discussed various forms of synchronization: mutexes, condition variables, read–write locks, record locks, and semaphores. What we mean by ‘‘no kernel involvement’’ is that the processes do not execute any sys- tem calls into the kernel to pass the data. Obviously, the kernel must establish the mem- ory mappings that allow the processes to share the memory, and then manage this memory over time (handle page faults, and the like). Consider the normal steps involved in the client–server file copying program that we used as an example for the various types of message passing (Figure 4.1). • The server reads from the input file. The file data is read by the kernel into its memory and then copied from the kernel to the process. • The server writes this data in a message, using a pipe, FIFO, or message queue. These forms of IPC normally require the data to be copied from the process to the kernel. We use the qualifier normally because Posix message queues can be implemented using memory-mapped I/O (the mmap function that we describe in this chapter), as we showed in Section 5.8 and as we show in the solution to Exercise 12.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Client/Server Architecture DES-0005 Revision 4
    PNNL-22587 The Client/Server Architecture DES-0005 Revision 4 Charlie Hubbard February 2012 The Client/Server Architecture Charlie Hubbard DES-0005 Revision 4 February 2012 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service,
    [Show full text]
  • MODELS of DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Basic Elements
    Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 1 Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 2 MODELS OF DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Basic Elements • Resources in a distributed system are shared between users. They are normally encapsulated within one of the computers and can be accessed from other computers by communication. 1. Architectural Models • Each resource is managed by a program, the resource manager; it offers a communication 2. Interaction Models interface enabling the resource to be deceased by its users. 3. Failure Models • Resource managers can be in general modelled as processes. If the system is designed according to an object- oriented methodology, resources are encapsulated in objects. Petru Eles, IDA, LiTH Petru Eles, IDA, LiTH Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 3 Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 4 Architectural Models Client - Server Model How are responsibilities distributed between system components and how are these components placed? ☞ The system is structured as a set of processes, called servers, that offer services to the users, called • Client-server model clients. • Proxy server • Peer processes (peer to peer) • The client-server model is usually based on a simple request/reply protocol, implemented with send/receive primitives or using remote procedure calls (RPC) or remote method invocation (RMI): - the client sends a request message to the server asking for some service; - the server does the work and returns a result (e.g. the data requested) or an error code if the work could not be performed. Petru Eles, IDA, LiTH Petru Eles, IDA, LiTH Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 5 Distributed Systems Fö 2/3- 6 Client - Server Model (cont’d) Proxy Server ☞ A proxy server provides copies (replications) of resources which are managed by other servers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Ugni-Based Asynchronous Message-Driven Runtime System for Cray Supercomputers with Gemini Interconnect
    A uGNI-based Asynchronous Message-driven Runtime System for Cray Supercomputers with Gemini Interconnect Yanhua Sun, Gengbin Zheng, Laxmikant V. Kale´ Terry R. Jones Ryan Olson Department of Computer Science Computer Science and Mathematics Division Cray Inc University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Oak Ridge National Lab [email protected] Urbana, Illinois Oak Ridge, Tennessee fsun51, gzheng, [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Gemini, the network for the new Cray XE/XK user-level Generic Network Interface (uGNI) [?] is pro- systems, features low latency, high bandwidth and strong scal- vided as a low-level interface for Gemini, on top of which ability. Its hardware support for remote direct memory access the Cray MPI is implemented. Gemini-based interconnects enables efficient implementation of the global address space programming languages. Although the user Generic Network have been deployed in two petaflop supercomputers, Cielo Interface (uGNI) provides a low-level interface for Gemini with at Los Alamos National Lab and Hopper at Lawrence support to the message-passing programming model (MPI), it Berkeley National Lab. Jaguar, one of the most powerful remains challenging to port alternative programming models supercomputers, is being upgraded to a XK6 system with with scalable performance. Gemini interconnect. The newly announced Blue Waters CHARM++ is an object-oriented message-driven program- ming model. Its applications have been shown to scale up to supercomputer, which will deliver sustained performance of the full Jaguar Cray XT machine. In this paper, we present 1 petaflop, will also be equipped with a Gemini interconnect. an implementation of this programming model on uGNI for As Cray supercomputers with Gemini interconnects become the Cray XE/XK systems.
    [Show full text]