Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparison of some recent Task-based Parallel Programming Models
KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Communication: Services and Infrastucture, Software and Computer Systems, SCS. (Kista Multicore Center)
KTH, School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Communication: Services and Infrastucture, Software and Computer Systems, SCS. (Kista Multicore Center)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9637-2065
2010 (English)In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Programmability Issues for Multi-Core Computers, (MULTIPROG'2010), Jan 2010, Pisa, 2010Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The need for parallel programming models that are simple to use and at the same time efficient for current ant future parallel platforms has led to recent attention to task-based models such as Cilk++, Intel TBB and the task concept in OpenMP version 3.0. The choice of model and implementation can have a major impact on the final performance and in order to understand some of the trade-offs we have made a quantitative study comparing four implementations of OpenMP (gcc, Intel icc, Sun studio and the research compiler Mercurium/nanos mcc), Cilk++ and Wool, a high-performance task-based library developed at SICS. Abstract. We use microbenchmarks to characterize costs for task-creation and stealing and the Barcelona OpenMP Tasks Suite for characterizing application performance. By far Wool and Cilk++ have the lowest overhead in both spawning and stealing tasks. This is reflected in application performance when many tasks with small granularity are spawned where Cilk++ and, in particular, has the highest performance. For coarse granularity applications, the OpenMP implementations have quite similar performance as the more light-weight Cilk++ and Wool except for one application where mcc is superior thanks to a superior task scheduler. Abstract. The OpenMP implemenations are generally not yet ready for use when the task granularity becomes very small. There is no inherent reason for this, so we expect future implementations of OpenMP to focus on this issue.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010.
National Category
Computer Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-89616OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-89616DiVA: diva2:503167
Conference
MULTIPROG'2010, Jan 2010, Pisa
Note
Qc 20120214Available from: 2012-02-15 Created: 2012-02-15 Last updated: 2012-02-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Podobas-Multiprog'2010(258 kB)321 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 258 kBChecksum SHA-512
c4039234e6b62e5869b9509519b4dd8e3053193a7252b54cdb6837c9245e9b45fd59c2df96522b5e00326c3ced2eb33f3012b4160e791c29ff04e14184363671
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Conference website

Authority records BETA

Brorsson, Mats

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Podobas, ArturBrorsson, Mats
By organisation
Software and Computer Systems, SCS
Computer Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 321 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 186 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf