Advertisement

Do Iterative Solvers Benefit from Approximate Computing? An Evaluation Study Considering Orthogonal Approximation Methods

  • Michael Bromberger
  • Markus Hoffmann
  • Robin Rehrmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10793)

Abstract

Employing algorithms of scientific computing often comes in hand with finding a trade-off between accuracy and performance. Novel parallel hardware and algorithms only slightly improve these issues due to the increasing size of the problems. While high accuracy is inevitable for most problems, there are parts in scientific computing that allow us to introduce approximation. Therefore, in this paper we give answers to the following questions: (1) Can we exploit different approximate computing strategies in scientific computing? (2) Is there a strategy to combine approaches? To answer these questions, we apply different approximation strategies to a widely used iterative solver for linear systems of equations. We show the advantages and the limits of each strategy and a way to configure a combination of strategies according to a given relative error. Combining orthogonal strategies as an overall concept gives us significant opportunities to increase the performance.

References

  1. 1.
    Anzt, H., Chow, E., Dongarra, J.: Iterative sparse triangular solves for preconditioning. In: Träff, J.L., Hunold, S., Versaci, F. (eds.) Euro-Par 2015. LNCS, vol. 9233, pp. 650–661. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48096-0_50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anzt, H., Dongarra, J., Quintana-Ortí, E.S.: Adaptive precision solvers for sparse linear systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Energy Efficient Supercomputing, p. 2. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baek, W., Chilimbi, T.: Green: a framework for supporting energy-conscious programming using controlled approximation. In: ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bagnara, R.: A unified proof for the convergence of Jacobi and Gauss Seidel methods. SIAM Rev. 37, 93–97 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benzi, M.: Preconditioning techniques for large linear systems: a survey. J. Comput. Phys. 182, 418–477 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bromberger, M., Heuveline, V., Karl, W.: Reducing energy consumption of data transfers using runtime data type conversion. In: Hannig, F., Cardoso, J.M.P., Pionteck, T., Fey, D., Schröder-Preikschat, W., Teich, J. (eds.) ARCS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9637, pp. 239–250. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30695-7_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chazan, D., Miranker, W.: Chaotic relaxation. Linear Algebra Appl. 2, 199–222 (1969)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chippa, V., Chakradhar, S., Roy, K., Raghunathan, A.: Analysis and characterization of inherent application resilience for approximate computing. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC 2013, pp. 113:1–113:9. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsson, S., Thomee, V.: Partial Differential Equations with Numerical Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88706-5 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, S., Pattabiraman, K., Moscibroda, T., Zorn, B.G.: Flikker: saving DRAM refresh-power through critical data partitioning. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 47(4), 213–224 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mittal, S.: A survey of techniques for approximate computing. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 48, 62:1–62:33 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raha, A., Venkataramani, S., Raghunathan, V., Raghunathan, A.: Energy-efficient reduce-and-rank using input-adaptive approximations. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. (VLSI) Syst. 25(2), 462–475 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renganarayana, L., Srinivasan, V., Nair, R., Prener, D.: Programming with relaxed synchronization. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Relaxing Synchronization for Multicore and Manycore Scalability, pp. 41–50. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saad, Y.: Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. PWS, Boston (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samadi, M., Jamshidi, D.A., Lee, J., Mahlke, S.: Paraprox: pattern-based approximation for data parallel applications. ACM SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 42, 35–50 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Samadi, M., Lee, J., Jamshidi, D.A., Hormati, A., Mahlke, S.: SAGE: self-tuning approximation for graphics engines. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, pp. 13–24. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaffner, M., Gurkaynak, F.K., Smolic, A., Kaeslin, H., Benini, L.: An approximate computing technique for reducing the complexity of a direct-solver for sparse linear systems in real-time video processing. In: 2014 51st ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schöll, A., Braun, C., Wunderlich, H.J.: Applying efficient fault tolerance to enable the preconditioned conjugate gradient solver on approximate computing hardware. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI and Nanotechnology Systems (DFT), pp. 21–26. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schöll, A., Braun, C., Wunderlich, H.J.: Energy-efficient and error-resilient iterative solvers for approximate computing. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design (IOLTS 2017), pp. 237–239 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shewchuk, J.R.: An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, August 1994Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sidiroglou-Douskos, S., Misailovic, S., Hoffmann, H., Rinard, M.: Managing performance vs. accuracy trade-offs with loop perforation. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2011, pp. 124–134. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, Q., Tian, Y., Wang, T., Yuan, F., Xu, Q.: Approxeigen: an approximate computing technique for large-scale eigen-decomposition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 824–830. IEEE Press (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, Q., Yuan, F., Ye, R., Xu, Q.: Approxit: an approximate computing framework for iterative methods. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Design Automation Conference, pp. 1–6. ACM (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Bromberger
    • 1
  • Markus Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Robin Rehrmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Architecture and Parallel ProcessingKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Database Technology Group, Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations