Advertisement

On stalling in LogP

(Extended Abstract)
  • Gianfranco Bilardi
  • Kieran T. Herley
  • Andrea Pietracaprina
  • Geppino Pucci
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1800)

Abstract

We investigate the issue of stalling in the LogP model. In particular, we introduce a novel quantitative characterization of stalling, referred to as δ-stalling, which intuitively captures the realistic assumption that once the network’s capacity constraint is violated, it takes some time (at most δ) for this information to propagate to the processors involved. We prove a lower bound that shows that LogP under δ-stalling is strictly more powerful than the stall-free version of the model where only strictly stall-free computations are permitted. On the other hand, we show that δ-stalling LogP with δ = L can be simulated with at most logarithmic slowdown by a BSP machine with similar bandwidth and latency values, thus extending the equivalence (up to logarithmic factors) between stall-free LogP and BSP argued in [1] to the more powerful L-stalling LogP.

Keywords

Capacity Constraint Local Memory Incoming Message Barrier Synchronization Maximum Delivery Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Bilardi, K.T. Herley, A. Pietracaprina, G. Pucci and P. Spirakis. BSP vs. LogP. Algorithmica, 24:405–422, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.E. Culler, R. Karp, D. Patterson, A. Sahay, K.E. Schauser, E. Santos, R. Subramonian, and T.V. Eicken. LogP: A practical model of parallel computation. Communications of the ACM, 39(11):78–85, November 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.T. Goodrich. Communication-Efficient Parallel Sorting. In Proc. of the 28th ACM Symp on Theory of Computing, pages 247–256, Philadelphia PA, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.D. MacKenzie. Lower bounds for randomized exclusive write PRAMs. Theorey of Computing Systems, 30(6):599–626, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Ramachandran, B. Grayson, and M. Dahlin. Emulations between QSM, BSP and LogP: a framework for general-purpose parallel algorithm design. TR98-22, Dept. of CS, Univ. of Texas at Austin, November 1998. (Summary in Proc. of ACM-SIAM SODA, 1999.)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L.G. Valiant. A bridging model for parallel computation. Communications of the ACM, 33(8):103–111, August 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianfranco Bilardi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kieran T. Herley
    • 3
  • Andrea Pietracaprina
    • 1
  • Geppino Pucci
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformaticaUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.T.J. Watson Research CenterIBMYorktown HeightsUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations