A hybrid circular queue method for iterative stencil computations on GPUs

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 57-74

  Yang, Yang ^a,b   Cui, Hui Min ^a,b   Feng, Xiao Bing ^a   Xue, Jing Ling ^c  

^a INSTITUTE OF COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Circular queue; GPU; Occupancy; Register; Stencil computation

Indexed keywords

CIRCULAR QUEUE; GPU; OCCUPANCY; REGISTER; STENCIL COMPUTATIONS;

PROGRAM PROCESSORS;

QUEUEING THEORY;

EID: 84861635761     PISSN: 10009000     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11390-012-1206-3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Wonnacott D. Achieving scalable locality with time skewing. Int. J. Parallel Program, 2002, 30(3): 181-221.
2. Mccalpin J, Wonnacott D. Time skewing: A value-based ap-proach to optimizing for memory locality. Technical Report DCS-TR-379, Department of Computer Science, Rugers Uni-versity. 1999.
3. Strzodka R, Shaheen M, Pajak D et al. Cache oblivious parallelograms in iterative stencil computations. In Proc. The 24th ACM Int. Conf. Supercomputing, Tsukuba, Japan, Jun. 1-4, 2010, pp.49-59.
4. Song Y, Li Z. New tiling techniques to improve cache temporal locality. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Program-ming Language Design and Implementation, Atlanta, USA, May 1-4, 1999, pp.215-228.
5. Jin G, Mellor-Crummey J, Fowler R. Increasing tempo-ral locality with skewing and recursive blocking. In Proc. ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, Denver, USA, Nov. 10-16, 2001, pp.43-43.
6. Datta K, Murphy M, Volkov V et al. Stencil computation op-timization and auto-tuning on state-of-the-art multicore ar-chitectures. In Proc. ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercom-puting, Austin, USA, Nov.15-21, 2008, Article 4.
7. Williams S, Shalf J, Oliker L et al. Scientific computing Ker-nels on the cell processor. Int. J. Parallel Program, 2007, 35(3): 263-298. (Pubitemid 46904454)
8. Meng J, Skadron K. Performance modeling and automatic ghost zone optimization for iterative stencil loops on GPUs. In Proc. The 23rd International Conference on Supercomput-ing, Yorktown Heights, USA, Jun. 8-12, 2009, pp.256-265.
9. NVIDIA. NVIDIA CUDA programming guide 3.0, http://de-veloper.download. nvidia.com/compute/cuda/3 0/toolkit/do-cs/NVIDIA CUDA ProgrammingGuide-pdf, 2010.
10. NVIDIA Corp. CUDA Occupancy Calculator, 2010.
11. Hong S, Kim H. An analytical model for a GPU architecture with memory-level and thread-level parallelism awareness. In Proc. The 36th Annual Int. Symp. Computer Architecture, Austin, USA, Jun. 20-24, 2009, pp.152-163.
12. Baghsorkhi S S, Delahaye M, Patel S J, Gropp W D, Hwu W W. An adaptive performance modeling tool for GPU archi-tectures. In Proc. The 15th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, Bangalore, India, Jan. 9-14, 2010, pp.105-114.
13. van der Laan W J. Decuda. http://wiki.github.com/laanwj/decuda/, Sept., 2010.
14. Moazeni M, Bui A, Sarrafzadeh M. A memory optimization technique for software-managed scratchpad memory in GPUs. In Proc. The 7th IEEE Symposium on Application Specific Processors, San Francisco, USA, Jul. 27-28, 2009, pp.43-49.
15. Carrillo S, Siegel J, Li X. A control-structure splitting opti-mization for GPGPU. In Proc. The 6th ACM Conf. Comput-ing Frontiers, Ischia, Italy, May 18-20, 2009, pp.147-150.
16. Park S J, Ross J, Shires D, Richie D, Henz B, Nguyen L. Hy-brid core acceleration of UWB SIRE radar signal processing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst, 2011, 22(1): 46-57.
17. Gu L, Li X, Siegel J. An empirically tuned 2D and 3D FFT library on CUDA GPU. In Proc. The 24th ACM Int. Conf. Supercomputing, Tsukuba, Japan, Jun. 1-4, 2010, pp.305-314.
18. Goorts P, Rogmans S, Bekaert P. Optimal data distribu-tion for versatile finite impulse response filtering on next-generation graphics hardware using CUDA. In Proc. The 15th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Sys-tems, Shenzhen, China, Dec. 9-11, 2009, pp.300-307.
19. Bailey P, Myre J, Walsh S D C, Lilja D J, Saar M O. Accele-rating lattice Boltzmann fluid flow simulations using graphics processors. In Proc. International Conference on Parallel Processing, Vienna, Austria, Sep. 22-25, 2009, pp.550-557.
20. Venkatasubramanian S, Vuduc R W. Tuned and wildly asyn-chronous stencil kernels for hybrid CPU/GPU systems. In Proc. The 23rd International Conference on Supercomputing, Yorktown Heights, USA, Jun. 8-12, 2009, pp.244-255.
21. Christen M, Schenk O, Neufeld E et al. Parallel data-locality aware stencil computations on modern micro-architectures. In Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Parallel & Distributed Process-ing, Rome, Italy, May 23-29, 2009, pp.1-10.
22. Micikevicius P. 3D finite difference computation on GPUs us-ing CUDA. In Proc. The 2nd Workshop on General Purpose Processing on Graphics Processing Units, Washington, USA, Mar. 8, 2009, pp.79-84.
23. Di P, Wan Q, Zhang X et al. Toward harnessing DOACROSS parallelism for multi-GPGPUs. In Proc. The 39th Int. Conf. Parallel Processing, San Diego, USA, Sep. 13-16, 2010, pp.40-50.
24. Christen M, Schenk O, Burkhart H. Patus: A code genera-tion and autotuning framework for parallel iterative stencil computations on modern microarchitectures. In Proc. IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium, Anchorage, USA, May 16-20, 2011, pp.676-687.
25. Nguyen A, Satish N, Chhugani J, Kim C, Dubey P. 3.5-D blocking optimization for stencil computations on modern CPUs and GPUs. In Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, New Orleans, USA, Nov. 13-19, 2010, pp.1-13.
26. Qasem A, Kennedy K. Profitable loop fusion and tiling us-ing model-driven empirical search. In Proc. The 20th Annual International Conference on Supercomputing, Cairns, Aus-tralia, Jun. 28-Jul. 1, 2006, pp.249-258. (Pubitemid 47168511)
27. Knijnenburg P M W, Kisuki T, Gallivan K et al. The effect of cache models on iterative compilation for combined tiling and unrolling: Research articles. Concurrency and Computation: Practice & Experience, 2004, 16(2-3): 247-270.
28. Yotov K, Li X, Ren G et al. A comparison of empirical and model-driven optimization. In Proc. The ACM SIGPLAN 2003 Conference on Programming Language Design and Im-plementation, San Diego, USA, Jun. 8-11, 2003, pp.63-76.
29. Chen C, Chame J, Hall M. Combining models and guided empirical search to optimize for multiple levels of the mem-ory hierarchy. In Proc. Int. Symp. Code Generation and Optimization, San Jose, USA, Mar. 20-23, 2005, pp.111-122. (Pubitemid 43773797)
30. Epshteyn A, Garzaran M, DeJong G et al. Analytical models and empirical search: A hybrid approach to code optimiza-tion. In Proc. The 18th International Workshop on Lan-guages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, Hawthorne, USA, Oct. 20-22, 2005, pp.259-273. (Pubitemid 351702215)
31. Agakov F, Bonilla E, Cavazos J et al. Using machine learning to focus iterative optimization. In Proc. Int. Symp. Code Generation and Optimization, New York, USA, Mar. 26-29, 2006, pp.295-305.
32. Almagor L, Cooper K D, Grosul A, Harvey T J, Reeves S W, Subramanian D, Torczon L, Waterman T. Finding effective compilation sequences. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embed-ded Systems, Washington, USA, Jun. 11-13, 2004, pp.231-239.
33. Vaswani K, Thazhuthaveetil M J, Srikant Y N et al. Mi-croarchitecture sensitive empirical models for compiler opti-mizations. In Proc. Int, Symp, Code Generation and Opti-mization, San Jose, USA, Mar. 11-14, 2007, pp.131-143. (Pubitemid 47214304)
34. Ryoo S, Rodrigues C I, Stone S S et al. Program optimiza-tion space pruning for a multithreaded gpu. In Proc. The 6th Annual IEEE/ACM Int. Symp. Code Generation and Optimization, Boston, USA, Apr. 6-9, 2008, pp.195-204. (Pubitemid 351667266)
35. Choi J W, Singh A, Vuduc R W. Model-driven autotuning of sparse matrix-vector multiply on GPUs. In Proc. The 15th ACM SIGPLAN Symp. Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, Bangalore, India, Jan. 9-14, 2010, pp.115-126.
36. Lam M. Software pipelining: An effective scheduling tech-nique for VLIW machines. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Confe-rence on Programming Language Design and Implementa-tion, Atlanta, USA, Jun. 20-24, 1988, pp.318-328.
37. Callahan D, Carr S, Kennedy K. Improving register allocation for subscripted variables. In Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Confer-ence on Programming Language Design and Implementation, White Plains, USA, Jun. 20-22, 1990, pp.53-65.