REVIEW 1 cited by
A Comparative Study of Asynchronous Many-Tasking Runtimes: Cilk, Charm++, ParalleX and AM++
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We evaluate and compare four contemporary and emerging runtimes for high-performance computing(HPC) applications: Cilk, Charm++, ParalleX and AM++. We compare along three bases: programming model, execution model and the implementation on an underlying machine model. The comparison study includes a survey of each runtime system's programming models, their corresponding execution models, their stated features, and performance and productivity goals. We first qualitatively compare these runtimes with programmability in mind. The differences in expressivity and programmability arising from their syntax and semantics are clearly enunciated through examples common to all runtimes. Then, the execution model of each runtime, which acts as a bridge between the programming model and the underlying machine model, is compared and contrasted to that of the others. We also evaluate four mature implementations of these runtimes, namely: Intel Cilk++, Charm++ 6.5.1, AM++ and HPX, that embody the principles dictated by these models. With the emergence of the next generation of supercomputers, it is imperative for parallel programming models to evolve and address the integral challenges introduced by the increasing scale. Rather than picking a winner out of these four models under consideration, we end with a discussion on lessons learned, and how such a study is instructive in the evolution of parallel programming frameworks to address the said challenges.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Exploring Performance-Productivity Trade-offs in AMT Runtimes: A Task Bench Study of Itoyori, ItoyoriFBC, HPX, and MPI
Itoyori beats MPI on communication-heavy task graphs with about half the code, while MPI still wins on regular workloads and HPX handles imbalance best.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.