DOCSLIB.ORG

General-Purpose Performance Portable Programming Models for Productive Exascale Computing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General-Purpose Performance Portable Programming Models for Productive Exascale Computing Area Exam: General-Purpose Performance Portable Programming Models for Productive Exascale Computing Alister Johnson Department of Computer and Information Sciences University of Oregon Spring 2020 Abstract best way to program them. In addition, the wide va- riety of architectures means code written for one archi- Modern supercomputer architectures have grown increas- tecture may not run on another. Over the last couple ingly complex and diverse since the end of Moore's law decades, portable programming models, such as OpenMP in the mid-2000s, and are far more difficult to program and MPI, have matured to the point that most code can than their predecessors. While HPC programming mod- now be ported to multiple architectures with minimal ef- els have improved such that applications are now gen- fort from developers. However, these models do not guar- erally portable between architectures, their performance antee that ported code will run well on a new architec- can still vary wildly, and developers now need to spend ture. a great deal of time tuning or even rewriting their ap- Performance tuning and optimization are now the most plications for each new machine to get the performance expensive parts of porting an application. The explo- they need. New performance portable programming mod- sion of new architectures also included an explosion of els aim to solve this problem and give high performance micro-architectures that can have wildly different perfor- on all architectures with minimal effort from developers. mance characteristics, and to make the best use of micro- This area exam will survey many of these proposed architectural features, developers often have to rewrite general-purpose programming models, including libraries, large portions of their applications. For very large ap- parallel languages, directive-based language extensions, plications (100,000+ lines of code), this is prohibitively and source-to-source translators, and compare them in expensive, and developers need a better option. terms of use cases, performance, portability, and de- Even when developers could rewrite their application, veloper productivity. It will also discuss compiler and they often want to run on multiple architectures, and general-purpose language standard (e.g., C++) support must therefore keep multiple versions of their code. Main- for performance portability features. taining multiple versions of the same code can be pro- hibitively expensive as well, since fixes and updates must be added to each version and these versions can diverge 1 Introduction as time goes on. Keeping multiple code paths within the same version runs into the same problem, so developers Since the end of Moore's law and Dennard scaling in the in this situation also need more options. mid-2000s, chip designers are hitting the physical limits of In short, porting applications to new architectures cur- what can be done with single- and multi-core processors. rently requires excessive developer effort and portable The high performance computing (HPC) community has programming solutions are not enough: we need perfor- realized simply scaling up existing hardware will no longer mance portable programming models that will increase work. As a result, there has been an explosion of new su- developer productivity. This paper will discuss several po- percomputer architectures in the last two decades that tential general-purpose, performance portable program- attempt to innovate around these physical limits to reach ming models that have been introduced in recent years, higher levels of performance. Many of these new architec- including: tures use accelerators, such as graphics processing units (GPUs) or Intel's Xeon Phi, as well as traditional CPUs, { Libraries, such as RAJA and SkelCL (Section 3) to achieve higher performance than CPUs alone. { Parallel languages, like Chapel and Cilk (Section 4) Unfortunately, these types of architectures are very dif- ficult to program, and there is still no consensus on the { Directive-based language extensions, including 1 OpenACC and OpenMP (Section 5) research in many domains. It will allow simulations to have higher resolution, scientific computations to get re- { Source-to-source translators, such as Omni and Clacc sults more quickly, and machine learning applications to (Section 6) train on more data. Current supercomputers can do on the order of 100 This paper will prioritize discussion of models that are petaFLOPs (1 exaFLOP = 1,000 petaFLOPs). Summit popular in the HPC community, are currently under de- (Oak Ridge National Lab) can do ∼150{200 petaFLOPs; velopment, were recently proposed, and/or provide some Sierra (Lawrence Livermore National Lab) and Sunway novelty, and future directions such models could take, TaihuLight (National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, where applicable. This paper will not discuss: domain China) can both do ∼100{125 petaFLOPs [171]. Aurora, specific languages (DSLs), since these by definition are arriving at Argonne National Lab in 2021, will theoreti- not general-purpose (although there have been promis- cally be an exascale machine. China and Japan are aim- ing results in using DSLs for performance portability); ing to have their own exascale machines by 2020 and 2023, autotuning or other machine learning-based methods for respectively [65]. automatic optimization, since those are meant to be used with the programming models, but are not programming models themselves; or generic programming frameworks 2.1.1 Goals for Exascale such as MapReduce or StarPU, since these are not truly programming models, but efficient runtime systems. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) set a goal to build In addition, Section 7 will discuss current compiler an exascale machine that has a hardware cost of less than support for parallelism and potential improvements that $200M and uses less than 20MW of power [149]. Aurora these models could make use of. Section 8 will summarize will not meet the cost goal, and it's still unknown if it and compare these models in terms of use cases, perfor- will meet the power goal, but there is hope for future mance, portability, and developer productivity. Section machines. 2 will begin by providing background information, and Other (implicit) goals for exascale computing include Section 9 will conclude. (1) making exascale machines \easy" to program, (2) ver- The main sections of this paper (3, 4, 5, and 6) will ifying that these machines can do a \useful" exaFLOP, be structured as follows. A brief introduction will be and (3) verifying they can perform sustained exaFLOPs. given, then each programming model will be described. The first of these is also a goal of performance portability, Each model will be discussed in terms of the \3 P's" and will be discussed further in Sec. 2.3 (on productiv- (portability, performance, and productivity) and given a ity). (qualitative, subjective) \P3 Ranking" based on how well As for (2) and (3), the origin of these questions goes it meets the criteria for being performance portable and back to how supercomputer performance is measured. productive, as defined later in Sec. 2.4. All of this will The measurement method used by Top500 is the LIN- be summarized in two tables at the end. PACK Benchmark, a dense linear algebra solver [170]. LINPACK has been criticized for being overly specific and thus not representative of real applications that will be 2 Background run on these machines. For example, LINPACK does not account for data transfers, which is one of the bottlenecks The first part of this section will describe the goals and on current machines. Very few applications can achieve challenges of exascale computing, as well as how it re- even close to the peak performance of LINPACK because lates to performance portability. The second part will dis- they cannot make use of all the floating point units on a cuss background information on performance portability, chip and/or they have to wait on data movement [73]. including its most common mathematical definition and The HPC community wants an exascale machine that several criticisms of that definition. The section will con- can perform a \useful" exaFLOP with a real application clude with some definitions and brief descriptions of pop- that has these kinds of problems. If the machine can ular non-(performance) portable programming models, only do exaFLOPs with highly tuned, compute-bound which will be compared to various performance portable programs like LINPACK, that isn't helpful for domain sci- models throughout this paper. entists, whose applications are much more varied. If the machine cannot perform sustained exaFLOPs, but only 2.1 Exascale Computing burst to an exaFLOP under some circumstances (e.g., the kind of dense math performed by LINPACK), that The aim of exascale computing is to build a machine that also isn't helpful. Building an exascale machine that can can do 1018 floating point operations in a second | 1 meet goals (2) and (3) will be a challenge beyond merely exaFLOP. Exascale computing is essential for doing new building an exascale machine. 2 2.1.2 Challenges of Exascale 10. Scientific productivity | we want to increase productivity of domain scientists with new A DoE report on exascale computing [94] identified the tools and environments that let them work following as the top ten challenges to building an exascale on exascale machines easily. supercomputer. Many other works have also identified a subset of these as major difficulties for exascale systems The two bold challenges, (5) and (10), are of particular [149, 74, 107]. interest to performance portability research. Performance portability is concerned with creating programming mod- 1. Energy efficiency | the goal is to use only 20 MW els that run equally well on multiple architectures/ma- of power, but simply scaling up current technology chines; the more difficult question is, how can we do so would use far more than this. while allowing developers to express parallelism, data lo- cality, and fault tolerance in ways that won't tie them to 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Importance of Data
    The landscape of Parallel Programing Models Part 2: The importance of Data Michael Wong and Rod Burns Codeplay Software Ltd. Distiguished Engineer, Vice President of Ecosystem IXPUG 2020 2 © 2020 Codeplay Software Ltd. Distinguished Engineer Michael Wong ● Chair of SYCL Heterogeneous Programming Language ● C++ Directions Group ● ISOCPP.org Director, VP http://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/wg21#michael-wong ● [email protected] ● [email protected] Ported ● Head of Delegation for C++ Standard for Canada Build LLVM- TensorFlow to based ● Chair of Programming Languages for Standards open compilers for Council of Canada standards accelerators Chair of WG21 SG19 Machine Learning using SYCL Chair of WG21 SG14 Games Dev/Low Latency/Financial Trading/Embedded Implement Releasing open- ● Editor: C++ SG5 Transactional Memory Technical source, open- OpenCL and Specification standards based AI SYCL for acceleration tools: ● Editor: C++ SG1 Concurrency Technical Specification SYCL-BLAS, SYCL-ML, accelerator ● MISRA C++ and AUTOSAR VisionCpp processors ● Chair of Standards Council Canada TC22/SC32 Electrical and electronic components (SOTIF) ● Chair of UL4600 Object Tracking ● http://wongmichael.com/about We build GPU compilers for semiconductor companies ● C++11 book in Chinese: Now working to make AI/ML heterogeneous acceleration safe for https://www.amazon.cn/dp/B00ETOV2OQ autonomous vehicle 3 © 2020 Codeplay Software Ltd. Acknowledgement and Disclaimer Numerous people internal and external to the original C++/Khronos group, in industry and academia, have made contributions, influenced ideas, written part of this presentations, and offered feedbacks to form part of this talk. But I claim all credit for errors, and stupid mistakes. These are mine, all mine! You can’t have them.
    [Show full text]
  • (CITIUS) Phd DISSERTATION
    UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION´ EN TECNOLOX´IAS DA INFORMACION´ (CITIUS) PhD DISSERTATION PERFORMANCE COUNTER-BASED STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE DATA LOCALITY ON MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEMS: REORDERING AND PAGE MIGRATION TECHNIQUES Author: Juan Angel´ Lorenzo del Castillo PhD supervisors: Prof. Francisco Fernandez´ Rivera Dr. Juan Carlos Pichel Campos Santiago de Compostela, October 2011 Prof. Francisco Fernandez´ Rivera, professor at the Computer Architecture Group of the University of Santiago de Compostela Dr. Juan Carlos Pichel Campos, researcher at the Computer Architecture Group of the University of Santiago de Compostela HEREBY CERTIFY: That the dissertation entitled Performance Counter-based Strategies to Improve Data Locality on Multiprocessor Systems: Reordering and Page Migration Techniques has been developed by Juan Angel´ Lorenzo del Castillo under our direction at the Department of Electronics and Computer Science of the University of Santiago de Compostela in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Santiago de Compostela, October 2011 Francisco Fernandez´ Rivera, Profesor Catedratico´ de Universidad del Area´ de Arquitectura de Computadores de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Juan Carlos Pichel Campos, Profesor Doctor del Area´ de Arquitectura de Computadores de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela HACEN CONSTAR: Que la memoria titulada Performance Counter-based Strategies to Improve Data Locality on Mul- tiprocessor Systems: Reordering and Page Migration Techniques ha sido realizada por D. Juan Angel´ Lorenzo del Castillo bajo nuestra direccion´ en el Departamento de Electronica´ y Computacion´ de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, y constituye la Tesis que presenta para optar al t´ıtulo de Doctor por la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
    [Show full text]
  • Intel® Oneapi Programming Guide
    Intel® oneAPI Programming Guide Intel Corporation www.intel.com Notices and Disclaimers Contents Notices and Disclaimers....................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Introduction oneAPI Programming Model Overview ..........................................................7 Data Parallel C++ (DPC++)................................................................8 oneAPI Toolkit Distribution..................................................................9 About This Guide.......................................................................................9 Related Documentation ..............................................................................9 Chapter 2: oneAPI Programming Model Sample Program ..................................................................................... 10 Platform Model........................................................................................ 14 Execution Model ...................................................................................... 15 Memory Model ........................................................................................ 17 Memory Objects.............................................................................. 19 Accessors....................................................................................... 19 Synchronization .............................................................................. 20 Unified Shared Memory.................................................................... 20 Kernel Programming
    [Show full text]
  • Executable Modelling for Highly Parallel Accelerators
    Executable Modelling for Highly Parallel Accelerators Lorenzo Addazi, Federico Ciccozzi, Bjorn¨ Lisper School of Innovation, Design, and Engineering Malardalen¨ University -Vaster¨ as,˚ Sweden florenzo.addazi, federico.ciccozzi, [email protected] Abstract—High-performance embedded computing is develop- development are lagging behind. Programming accelerators ing rapidly since applications in most domains require a large and needs device-specific expertise in computer architecture and increasing amount of computing power. On the hardware side, low-level parallel programming for the accelerator at hand. this requirement is met by the introduction of heterogeneous systems, with highly parallel accelerators that are designed to Programming is error-prone and debugging can be very dif- take care of the computation-heavy parts of an application. There ficult due to potential race conditions: this is particularly is today a plethora of accelerator architectures, including GPUs, disturbing as many embedded applications, like autonomous many-cores, FPGAs, and domain-specific architectures such as AI vehicles, are safety-critical, meaning that failures may have accelerators. They all have their own programming models, which lethal consequences. Furthermore software becomes hard to are typically complex, low-level, and involve explicit parallelism. This yields error-prone software that puts the functional safety at port between different kinds of accelerators. risk, unacceptable for safety-critical embedded applications. In A convenient solution is to adopt a model-driven approach, this position paper we argue that high-level executable modelling where the computation-intense parts of the application are languages tailored for parallel computing can help in the software expressed in a high-level, accelerator-agnostic executable mod- design for high performance embedded applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Programming Multicores: Do Applications Programmers Need to Write Explicitly Parallel Programs?
    [3B2-14] mmi2010030003.3d 11/5/010 16:48 Page 2 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PROGRAMMING MULTICORES: DO APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMERS NEED TO WRITE EXPLICITLY PARALLEL PROGRAMS? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IN THIS PANEL DISCUSSION FROM THE 2009 WORKSHOP ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE Arvind RESEARCH DIRECTIONS,DAVID AUGUST AND KESHAV PINGALI DEBATE WHETHER EXPLICITLY Massachusetts Institute PARALLEL PROGRAMMING IS A NECESSARY EVIL FOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMERS, of Technology ASSESS THE CURRENT STATE OF PARALLEL PROGRAMMING MODELS, AND DISCUSS David August POSSIBLE ROUTES TOWARD FINDING THE PROGRAMMING MODEL FOR THE MULTICORE ERA. Princeton University Keshav Pingali Moderator’s introduction: Arvind in the 1970s and 1980s, when two main Do applications programmers need to write approaches were developed. Derek Chiou explicitly parallel programs? Most people be- The first approach required that the com- lieve that the current method of parallel pro- pilers do all the work in finding the parallel- University of Texas gramming is impeding the exploitation of ism. This was often referred to as the ‘‘dusty multicores. In other words, the number of decks’’ problem—that is, how to
    [Show full text]
  • An Outlook of High Performance Computing Infrastructures for Scientific Computing
    An Outlook of High Performance Computing Infrastructures for Scientific Computing [This draft has mainly been extracted from the PhD Thesis of Amjad Ali at Center for Advanced Studies in Pure and Applied Mathematics (CASPAM), Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakitsan 60800. ([email protected])] In natural sciences, two conventional ways of carrying out studies and reserach are: theoretical and experimental.Thefirstapproachisabouttheoraticaltreatmment possibly dealing with the mathematical models of the concerning physical phenomena and analytical solutions. The other approach is to perform physical experiments to carry out studies. This approach is directly favourable for developing the products in engineering. The theoretical branch, although very rich in concepts, has been able to develop only a few analytical methods applicable to rather simple problems. On the other hand the experimental branch involves heavy costs and specific arrangements. These shortcomings with the two approaches motivated the scientists to look around for a third or complementary choice, i.e., the use of numerical simulations in science and engineering. The numerical solution of scientific problems, by its very nature, requires high computational power. As the world has been continuously en- joying substantial growth in computer technologies during the past three decades, the numerical approach appeared to be more and more pragmatic. This constituted acompletenewbranchineachfieldofscience,oftentermedasComputational Science,thatisaboutusingnumericalmethodsforsolvingthemathematicalformu- lations of the science problems. Developments in computational sciences constituted anewdiscipline,namelytheScientific Computing,thathasemergedwiththe spirit of obtaining qualitative predictions through simulations in ‘virtual labora- tories’ (i.e., the computers) for all areas of science and engineering. The scientific computing, due to its nature, exists at the overlapping region of the three disciplines, mathematical modeling, numerical mathematics and computer science,asshownin Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Tuning Workshop
    Performance Tuning Workshop Samuel Khuvis Scientifc Applications Engineer, OSC February 18, 2021 1/103 Workshop Set up I Workshop – set up account at my.osc.edu I If you already have an OSC account, sign in to my.osc.edu I Go to Project I Project access request I PROJECT CODE = PZS1010 I Reset your password I Slides are the workshop website: https://www.osc.edu/~skhuvis/opt21_spring 2/103 Outline I Introduction I Debugging I Hardware overview I Performance measurement and analysis I Help from the compiler I Code tuning/optimization I Parallel computing 3/103 Introduction 4/103 Workshop Philosophy I Aim for “reasonably good” performance I Discuss performance tuning techniques common to most HPC architectures I Compiler options I Code modifcation I Focus on serial performance I Reduce time spent accessing memory I Parallel processing I Multithreading I MPI 5/103 Hands-on Code During this workshop, we will be using a code based on the HPCCG miniapp from Mantevo. I Performs Conjugate Gradient (CG) method on a 3D chimney domain. I CG is an iterative algorithm to numerically approximate the solution to a system of linear equations. I Run code with srun -n <numprocs> ./test_HPCCG nx ny nz, where nx, ny, and nz are the number of nodes in the x, y, and z dimension on each processor. I Download with: wget go . osu .edu/perftuning21 t a r x f perftuning21 I Make sure that the following modules are loaded: intel/19.0.5 mvapich2/2.3.3 6/103 More important than Performance! I Correctness of results I Code readability/maintainability I Portability -
    [Show full text]
  • Regent: a High-Productivity Programming Language for Implicit Parallelism with Logical Regions
    REGENT: A HIGH-PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE FOR IMPLICIT PARALLELISM WITH LOGICAL REGIONS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Elliott Slaughter August 2017 © 2017 by Elliott David Slaughter. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/mw768zz0480 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Alex Aiken, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Philip Levis I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Oyekunle Olukotun Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Abstract Modern supercomputers are dominated by distributed-memory machines. State of the art high-performance scientific applications targeting these machines are typically written in low-level, explicitly parallel programming models that enable maximal performance but expose the user to programming hazards such as data races and deadlocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Parallel Processing
    IntroductionIntroduction toto ParallelParallel ProcessingProcessing • Parallel Computer Architecture: Definition & Broad issues involved – A Generic Parallel ComputerComputer Architecture • The Need And Feasibility of Parallel Computing Why? – Scientific Supercomputing Trends – CPU Performance and Technology Trends, Parallelism in Microprocessor Generations – Computer System Peak FLOP Rating History/Near Future • The Goal of Parallel Processing • Elements of Parallel Computing • Factors Affecting Parallel System Performance • Parallel Architectures History – Parallel Programming Models – Flynn’s 1972 Classification of Computer Architecture • Current Trends In Parallel Architectures – Modern Parallel Architecture Layered Framework • Shared Address Space Parallel Architectures • Message-Passing Multicomputers: Message-Passing Programming Tools • Data Parallel Systems • Dataflow Architectures • Systolic Architectures: Matrix Multiplication Systolic Array Example PCA Chapter 1.1, 1.2 EECC756 - Shaaban #1 lec # 1 Spring 2012 3-13-2012 ParallelParallel ComputerComputer ArchitectureArchitecture A parallel computer (or multiple processor system) is a collection of communicating processing elements (processors) that cooperate to solve large computational problems fast by dividing such problems into parallel tasks, exploiting Thread-Level Parallelism (TLP). i.e Parallel Processing • Broad issues involved: Task = Computation done on one processor – The concurrency and communication characteristics of parallel algorithms for a given computational
    [Show full text]
  • CIS 501 Computer Architecture This Unit: Shared Memory
    This Unit: Shared Memory Multiprocessors App App App • Thread-level parallelism (TLP) System software • Shared memory model • Multiplexed uniprocessor CIS 501 Mem CPUCPU I/O CPUCPU • Hardware multihreading CPUCPU Computer Architecture • Multiprocessing • Synchronization • Lock implementation Unit 9: Multicore • Locking gotchas (Shared Memory Multiprocessors) • Cache coherence Slides originally developed by Amir Roth with contributions by Milo Martin • Bus-based protocols at University of Pennsylvania with sources that included University of • Directory protocols Wisconsin slides by Mark Hill, Guri Sohi, Jim Smith, and David Wood. • Memory consistency models CIS 501 (Martin): Multicore 1 CIS 501 (Martin): Multicore 2 Readings Beyond Implicit Parallelism • Textbook (MA:FSPTCM) • Consider “daxpy”: • Sections 7.0, 7.1.3, 7.2-7.4 daxpy(double *x, double *y, double *z, double a): for (i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) • Section 8.2 Z[i] = a*x[i] + y[i]; • Lots of instruction-level parallelism (ILP) • Great! • But how much can we really exploit? 4 wide? 8 wide? • Limits to (efficient) super-scalar execution • But, if SIZE is 10,000, the loop has 10,000-way parallelism! • How do we exploit it? CIS 501 (Martin): Multicore 3 CIS 501 (Martin): Multicore 4 Explicit Parallelism Multiplying Performance • Consider “daxpy”: • A single processor can only be so fast daxpy(double *x, double *y, double *z, double a): • Limited clock frequency for (i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) • Limited instruction-level parallelism Z[i] = a*x[i] + y[i]; • Limited cache hierarchy • Break it
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing SYCL with HPX, Kokkos, Raja and C++ Executors the Future of ISO C++ Heterogeneous Computing
    Comparing SYCL with HPX, Kokkos, Raja and C++ Executors The future of ISO C++ Heterogeneous Computing Michael Wong (Codeplay Software, VP of Research and Development), Andrew Richards, CEO ISOCPP.org Director, VP http://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/wg21#michael-wong Head of Delegation for C++ Standard for Canada Vice Chair of Programming Languages for Standards Council of Canada Chair of WG21 SG5 Transactional Memory Chair of WG21 SG14 Games Dev/Low Latency/Financial Trading/Embedded Editor: C++ SG5 Transactional Memory Technical Specification Editor: C++ SG1 Concurrency Technical Specification http:://wongmichael.com/about SC2016 Agenda • Heterogensous Computing for ISO C++ • SYCL • HPX (slides thanks to Hartmut Kaiser) • Kokkos (slides thanks to Carter Edwards, Christian Trott) • Raja (Slides thanks to David Beckingsale) • State of C++ Concurrency and Parallelism • C++ Executors coming in C++20 • C++ simd/vector coming in C++20 2 © 2016 Codeplay Software Ltd. The goal for C++ •Great support for cpu latency computations through concurrency TS- •Great support for cpu throughput through parallelism TS •Great support for Heterogeneous throughput computation in future 3 © 2016 Codeplay Software Ltd. Many alternatives for Massive dispatch/heterogeneous • Programming Languages Usage experience • OpenGL • DirectX • OpenMP/OpenACC • CUDA • HPC • OpenCL • SYCL • OpenMP • OpenCL • OpenACC • CUDA • C++ AMP • HPX • HSA • SYCL • Vulkan 4 © 2016 Codeplay Software Ltd. Not that far away from a Grand Unified Theory •GUT is achievable •What we have is only missing 20% of where we want to be •It is just not designed with an integrated view in mind ... Yet •Need more focus direction on each proposal for GUT, whatever that is, and add a few elements 5 © 2016 Codeplay Software Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cascade High Productivity Programming Language
    The Cascade High Productivity Programming Language Hans P. Zima University of Vienna, Austria and JPL, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA ECMWF Workshop on the Use of High Performance Computing in Meteorology Reading, UK, October 25, 2004 Contents 1 IntroductionIntroduction 2 ProgrammingProgramming ModelsModels forfor HighHigh ProductivityProductivity ComputingComputing SystemsSystems 3 CascadeCascade andand thethe ChapelChapel LanguageLanguage DesignDesign 4 ProgrammingProgramming EnvironmentsEnvironments 5 ConclusionConclusion Abstraction in Programming Programming models and languages bridge the gap between ““reality”reality” and hardware – at differentdifferent levels ofof abstractionabstraction - e.g., assembly languages general-purpose procedural languages functional languages very high-level domain-specific languages Abstraction implies loss of information – gain in simplicity, clarity, verifiability, portability versus potential performance degradation The Emergence of High-Level Sequential Languages The designers of the very first highhigh level programming langulanguageage were aware that their successsuccess dependeddepended onon acceptableacceptable performance of the generated target programs: John Backus (1957): “… It was our belief that if FORTRAN … were to translate any reasonable scientific source program into an object program only half as fast as its hand-coded counterpart, then acceptance of our system would be in serious danger …” High-level algorithmic languages became generally accepted standards for
    [Show full text]