Loop-level process control: An effective processor allocation policy for multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessors

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 949, Issue , 1995, Pages 182-199

  Yue, Kelvin K ^a   Lilja, David J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; BENCHMARKING; CACHE MEMORY; LOCKS (FASTENERS); MEMORY ARCHITECTURE; MULTIPROGRAMMING; PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SCHEDULING; TIME SHARING SYSTEMS;

CONTEXT SWITCHING; CONTROL SCHEMES; MEMORY UTILIZATION; PROCESSING POWER; PROCESSOR ALLOCATION; SHARED MEMORY MULTIPROCESSOR; SHARED MEMORY MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEMS; SYSTEM UTILIZATION;

PROCESS CONTROL;

EID: 33744917133     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-60153-8_29     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. J. Barton and N. Bitar. A scalable multi-discipline, multiple-processor scheduling framework for IRIX. In IPPS'95 Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, pages 24–40, April 1995.
2. B. Bauer. Practical Parallel Programming. Academic Press, San Diego, 1992.
3. M. Berry, D. Chen, P. Koss, D. Kuck, and S. Lo. The Perfect Club benchmarks: effective performazme evaluation of supercomputers. International Journal of Supercomputer Applications, pages 5-40, Fall 1989.
4. Cray Research Inc. GRAY Y-MP, CRAY X-MP EA, and GRAY X-MP MuItitask. ing Programmer's Manual. Eagan, Minnesota, 1991.
5. R. Dimpsey and R. Iyer. Modeling and measuring multiprogramming and system overheads on a shaxed-memory multiprocessor: Case study. J. of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 12:402-412, 1991.
6. D. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Wasted resources in gang scheduling. In 5th Jerusalem Conf. on Information Technology, pages 127-136, Oct. 1990.
7. D. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Gang scheduling performance benefits for fine-grain synchronization. J. of Parallel and Distrib. Computing, 16:306-318, 1992.
8. A. Gupta, A. Tucker, and S. Urushibara. The impact of operating system scheduling polices and synchronization methods on the performance of parallel applications. In Conf. on the Measurement and Modeling of Comp. Sys., volume 19, pages 120-132, 1991.
9. S. Leutenegger and M. Vernon. The performance of multiprograxnmed multiprocessor scheduling policies. In Conf. on the Measurement and Modeling of Comp. Sys., volume 18, pages 226-236, 1990.
10. D. Lilja. Exploiting the parallelism available in loops. Computer, 27(2):13-26, February 1994.
11. V. Naik, S. Setia, and M. Squillante. Performance analysis of job scheduling policies in parallel supercomputing environments. In Supercomputing, pages 824-833, 1993.
12. C. Natarajan, S. Sharma, and R. Iyer. Impact of loop granularity and selfpreemption on the performance of loop parallel applications on a multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessor. In 1994 International Conference on Parallel Proeessing, volume II, pages 174-178, August 1994.
13. J. Ousterhout. Scheduling techniques for concurrent systems. In Distributed Computing Systems Conf., pages 22-30, 1982.
14. C. D. Polychronopoulos, M. Girkar, M. R. Haghighat, C. L. Lee, B. Leung, and D. Schouten. Parafrase-2: An environment for parallelizing, partitioning, synchronizing, and scheduling programs on multiprocessors. In International Conference on Parallel Processing, volume II, pages 39-48, 1989.
15. Silicon Graphics Inc. Symmetric Multiproeessing Systems. Mountain View, CA 94043, 1993.
16. A. Tucker and A. Gupta. Process control and scheduling issues for multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessors. In 12th A CM Sym. on Operating System Principles, pages 159-166, 1989.
17. K. Yne and D. Lilja. Parallel loop scheduling for high performance computers. In J. Dongarra and et. al., editors, High Performance Computing: Issues, Methods, and Applications. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
18. J. Zahorjan, E. Lazowska, and D. Eager. Spinning versus blocking in parallel systems with uncertainty. In Int. Sem. on Performance of Distributed and Parallel Systems, pages 455-472, 1988