Advertisement

Relating the Execution Behaviour with the Structure of the Application

  • A. Espinosa
  • F. Parcerisa
  • T. Margalef
  • E. Luque
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1697)

Abstract

Traditional parallel programming forces the programmer to understand the enormous amount of performance information obtained from the execution of a program. In this paper, we show how the use of KappaPi automatic analysis tool helps the programmers of applications to avoid this difficult task. In the last stage of the analysis we discuss the possibilities of establishing relationships between the performance information found and the programming structure of the application.

Keywords

Parallel Program Performance Information Trace File Slave Process Execution Behaviour 
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]
    Pancake, C. M., Simmons, M. L., Yan J. C.: Performance Evaluation Tools for Parallel and Distributed Systems. IEEE Computer, November 1995, vol. 28, p. 16–19.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Heath, M. T., Etheridge, J. A.: Visualizing the performance of parallel programs. IEEE Computer, November 1995, vol. 28, p. 21–28.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Kohl, J.A. and Geist, G.A.: “XPVM Users Guide”. Tech. Report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Reed, D. A., Aydt, R. A., Noe, R. J., Roth, P. C., Shields, K. A., Schwartz, B. W. and Tavera, L. F.: Scalable Performance Analysis: The Pablo Performance Analysis Environment. Proceedings of Scalable Parallel Libraries Conference. IEEE Computer Society, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Reed, D. A., Giles, R. C., Catlett, C. E.. Distributed Data and Immersive Collaboration. Communications of the ACM. November 1997. Vol. 40, No 11. p. 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hollingsworth, J. K., Miller, B, P. Dynamic Control of Performance Monitoring on Large Scale Parallel Systems. International Conference on Supercomputing (Tokyo, July 19–23, 1993).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Yan, Y. C., Sarukhai, S. R.: Analyzing parallel program performance using normalized performance indices and trace transformation techniques. Parallel Computing 22 (1996) 1215–1237.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Crovella, M.E. and LeBlanc, T. J.. The search for Lost Cycles: A New approach to parallel performance evaluation. TR479. The University of Rochester, Computer Science Department, Rochester, New York, December 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Meira W. Jr. Modelling performance of parallel programs. TR859. Computer Science Department, University of Rochester, June 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fahringer T., Automatic Performance Prediction of Parallel Programs. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. B. Stunkel, D. C. Rudolph, W. K. Fuchs, and D. A. Reed. Linear optimization: a case study in performance analysis. Proceedings of the fourth conference on Hypercube concurrent computers and applications, March 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Geist, A., Beguelin, A., Dongarra, J., Jiang, W., Manchek, R. and Sunderam, V., PVM: Parallel Virtual Machine, A User’s Guide and Tutorial for Network Parallel Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Espinosa, A., Margalef, T. and Luque, E.. Automatic Performance Evaluation of Parallel Programs. Proc. of the 6th EUROMICRO Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pp. 43–49. IEEE CS. 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Espinosa
    • 1
  • F. Parcerisa
    • 1
  • T. Margalef
    • 1
  • E. Luque
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSPAIN

Personalised recommendations