skip to main content
10.1145/782814.782835acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Performance characteristics of openMP constructs, and application benchmarks on a large symmetric multiprocessor

Published:23 June 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the increasing popularity of small to large-scale symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) systems, there has been a dire need to have sophisticated, and flexible development and runtime environments for efficient and rapid development of parallel applications. To this end, OpenMP has emerged as the standard for parallel programming on shared-memory systems. It is very important to evaluate the performance of OpenMP constructs, kernels, and application benchmarks on large-scale SMP systems. We present the performance of the basic OpenMP constructs, class B of NAS OpenMP 3.0 benchmarks, and the SPEC OMPL2001 application benchmarks (large data set) on a contemporary 72-node Sun Fire 15K SMP node. We report the basic timings, scalability, and runtime profiles of different parallel regions within each benchmark in the NAS OpenMP 3.0, and the SPEC OMPL-2001 suites. We elaborate on the performance differences between the medium and large classes of the SPEC OMP2001 suites on our system, as well as a comparison among a number of large-scale symmetric multiprocessors for the SPEC OMPL2001.

References

  1. SPEC OMP Benchmark Suite. (http://www.spec.org/omp/).]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. MPI: A Message Passing Interface Standard, 1997. Version 1.2.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. OpenMP C/C++ Application Programming Interface, March 2002. Version 2.0.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. V. Aslot, M. Domeika, R. Eigenmann, G. Gaertner, W. B. Jones, and B. Parady. SPEComp: A new benchmark suite for measuring parallel computer performance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2104:1--10, 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. V. Aslot and R. Eigenmann. Performance characteristics of the SPEC OMP2001 benchmarks. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on OpenMP (EWOMP2001), 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. H. Bailey, T. Harsis, W. Saphir, R. V. der Wijngaart, A. Woo, and M. Yarrow. The NAS parallel benchmarks 2.0: Report NAS-95-020. Technical report, Nasa Ames Research Center, December 1995.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Berrendorf and G. Nieken. Performance characteristics for OpenMP constructs on different parallel computer architectures. Concurrency: Practice and Experience, 12(12):1261--1273, 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. Bull. Measuring synchronisation and scheduling overheads in OpenMP. In Proceedings of the First European Workshop on OpenMP, 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. M. Bull and D. O'Neill. A microbenchmark suite for OpenMP 2.0. In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on OpenMP (EWOMP'01), 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Charlesworth. The sun fireplane interconnect. IEEE Micro, 22(1):36--45, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. R. Fredrickson, A. Afsahi, and Y. Qian. Performance characteristics of openmp constructs, and application benchmarks on a large symmetric multiprocessor, ECE-0302. Technical report, Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Feburary 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. H. Iwashita, E. Yamanaka, N. Sueyasu, M. van Waveren, and K. Miura. The SPEC OMP2001 benchmark on the Fujitsu PRIMEPOWER system. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on OpenMP (EWOMP2001), 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Jin, M. Frumkin, and J. Yan. The OpenMP implementation of NAS parallel benchmarks and its performance, Report NAS-99-011. Technical report, Nasa Ames Research Center, October 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. S. Müller. A shared memory benchmark in OpenMP. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on OpenMP Experiences and Implementations (WOMPEI), 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. B. Mohr, A. Mallony, H.-C. Hoppe, F. Schlimbach, G. Haab, and S. Shah. A performance monitoring interface for OpenMP. In Proceedings of Fourth European Workshop on OpenMP (EWOMP'02), 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Prabhakar, V. Getov, and B. M. Chapman. Performance comparisons of basic OpenMP constructs. In Proceedings of the fourth International Symposium on High Performance Computing (ISHPC), pages 413--424, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Saito, G. Gaertner, W. Jones, R. Eigenmann, H. Iwashita, R. Lieberman, M. van Waveren, , and B. Whitney. Large system performance of SPEC OMP2001 benchmarks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on OpenMP (WOMPEI2002): Experiences and Implementations, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Sato, K. Kusano, and S. Satoh. OpenMP benchmark using PARKBENCH. In Proceedings of the European Workshop on OpenMP (EWOMP2000), 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Takahashi, M. Sato, and T. Boku. Performance evaluation of the Hitachi SR8000 using OpenMP benchmarks. In Proceedings of International Workshop on OpenMP Experiences and Implementations (WOMPEI), 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Performance characteristics of openMP constructs, and application benchmarks on a large symmetric multiprocessor

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ICS '03: Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Supercomputing
          June 2003
          380 pages
          ISBN:1581137338
          DOI:10.1145/782814

          Copyright © 2003 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 June 2003

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          ICS '03 Paper Acceptance Rate36of171submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate584of2,055submissions,28%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader