Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

A comparison of lookahead and algorithmic blocking techniques for parallel matrix factorization

dc.contributor.authorStrazdins, Peteren_US
dc.date.accessioned2003-07-03en_US
dc.date.accessioned2004-05-19T12:26:27Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-05T08:38:00Z
dc.date.available2004-05-19T12:26:27Zen_US
dc.date.available2011-01-05T08:38:00Z
dc.date.created1998en_US
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, we analyse and compare the techniques of algorithmic blocking and (storage blocking with) lookahead for distributed memory LU, LLT and QR factorizations. Concepts and some useful properties of a simplified model of lookahead are explored, including the minimal degree of lookahead required for optimal performance. Issues in the implementation of lookahead are discussed, which are more involved for the cases of LLT and QR factorizations. It is also explained how hybrid algorithmic blocking and lookahead techniques can be implemented. Implications for parallel linear algebra library design are also discussed. Results are given on the Fujitsu AP1000 and AP+ multicomputers, which have relatively high communication to computation to speeds. The results indicate that both methods are superior to storage blocking (without lookahead). They also indicate that for such machines, the hybrid method is optimal for smaller matrices, due to savings in communication startups. For larger matrices, algorithmic blocking gave the best performance, due to its better load balancing properties. An exception was LLT for the AP+, where lookahead alone gave comparable or better performance for larger matrix sizes as well. Performance models, predicting the minimum matrix size where lookahead becomes effective, indicate this trend can be expected for machines with lower communication to computation speeds, but that the range for where lookahead is superior is extended.en_US
dc.format.extent320444 bytesen_US
dc.format.extent356 bytesen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-streamen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/40739en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/40739
dc.language.isoen_AUen_US
dc.subjectdense linear algebraen_US
dc.subjectblock cyclic decompositionen_US
dc.subjectstorage blockingen_US
dc.subjectalgorithmic blockingen_US
dc.subjectpipeliningen_US
dc.subjectlookaheaden_US
dc.subjectTR-CSen_US
dc.titleA comparison of lookahead and algorithmic blocking techniques for parallel matrix factorizationen_US
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paperen_US
local.citationTR-CS-98-07en_US
local.contributor.affiliationDepartment of Computer Science, FEITen_US
local.contributor.affiliationANUen_US
local.description.refereednoen_US
local.identifier.citationmonthjulen_US
local.identifier.citationyear1998en_US
local.identifier.eprintid1560en_US
local.rights.ispublishedyesen_US

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
TR-CS-98-07.pdf
Size:
312.93 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format