skip to main content
10.1145/509593.509629acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Topology preserving dynamic load balancing for parallel molecular simulations

Published:15 November 1997Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding the behavior of molecular systems such as DNA and proteins is a central problem in the field of physical chemistry. Most research laboratories now have a collection of heterogeneous processing architectures which could be brought to bear on this problem - high end PCs, various different workstations, and time on high performance machines [8, 11, 20]. Much work is currently being done on programming tools to exploit the different architectures, but most of this work to date is aimed at the programmer, who must spend time learning how to use message passing or parallel object oriented languages. The research scientist wishes simply to run their simulations as fast as possible. The work of our group includes the design of an environment[18] for the production of parallel code implementing the simulation of complex polymers, proteins and DNA molecules.The problems encountered in simulations of polymers, DNA and proteins often have straightforward parallel realizations, since the domain can be decomposed either spatially or along the molecular chain, and then a simple extension of the serial algorithm applied (at least for molecular mechanics - Monte Carlo methods need a little more work to ensure the criterion of detailed balance is adhered to) [5, 6, 19]. However, since the problems are completely dynamic in nature, any such decomposition will lead to an inefficient parallelization after sometime. Dynamic load balancing must then be applied to increase a simulations efficiency.To resolve the problem several load-balancing techniques have been proposed for SIMD [2, 16] and MIMD [12, 21,23, 25] models. We can distinguish between static and dynamic techniques. In contrast to static load balancing, where the decision as to which processors the workload is allocated is fixed at compilation, dynamic load balancing takes the behavior of the application and the system characteristics into account to distribute fairly the workload among the available processors. Dynamic load balancing is also characterized by the manner in which data are exchanged and controlled. The control can be centralized [22, 4] or distributed [14, 28, 7]. Distributed load balancing strategies are incorporated to each node of the system so that each can make decisions independently of the others.The control phase is characterized by the collection of information on the state of the system, such as the load on a processor, the number of idle processors, etc., and the decision making (whether the system is balanced or not). This phase is often absent in dynamic distribution strategies for data-parallel applications [9, 10, 17, 24]. The distribution phase is the main body of all algorithms which are generally based on the following criteria: 1) fair distribution of load, 2) minimization of communication introduced by the new distribution, 3) efficiency of the distribution procedure for data migrating from overloaded nodes to under-loaded (efficient routing algorithm), 4) respecting the topology of the application, and 5) simplicity of the algorithm to reduce to a minimum the execution time of the algorithm.Problems in the area of molecular simulation, among others, can be characterized by the fact that some part of the problem topology remains fixed at least for large parts of the simulation. Chemically bonded monomer groups remain close to their neighbors for large parts of the simulation. Load balancing techniques that redistribute the problem domain without taking this fact into account lead to increased levels of communication, and to a reduction in efficiency.Our work is in developing topology preserving load balancing algorithms for MIMD machines, and in this paper we focus on the analysis and performance of one such algorithm, Positional Scan Load Balancing, and its suitability for use in the runtime system of the parallel simulation environment.

References

  1. A. Baumgartner. Statics and Dynamics of the Freely Jointed Polymer Chain with Lennard-Jones Interaction. Journal of Chemical Physics, 72(2):871-879, Jan. 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. E. S. Biagioni. Scan Directed Load Balancing. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. H. Bisseling and W. F. McColl. Scientific Computing on Bulk Synchronous Parallel Architectures. Technical Report 836, Department of Mathematics, University of Utrecht, December 1993. Short version appears in Proc. 13th IFIP World Computer Congress. Volume I (1994), B. Pehrson and I. Simon, Eds., Elsevier, pp. 509-514.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Biswas, L. Oliker, and A. Sohn. Global Load balancing with Parallel Mesh Adaption on Distributed-Memory Systems. In Intl. Conference on Supercomputing, November, 17-22 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W. J. Camp, S. J. Plimpton, B. A. Hendrickson, and R. W. Leland. Massively Parallel Methods for Engineering and Science Problems. Communication of the ACM, 37(4):31-41, April 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Che Chen, J. P. Singh, W. B. Poland, and R. B. Altman. Parallel Protein Structure Determination from Uncertain Data. In Proceedings of Supercomputing'94, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. Cybenko. Dynamic Load Balancing for Distributed-Memory Multiprocessors. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 27:279-301, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Nortkin, A. P. Black, E. D. Lazowska, H. M. Levy, J. Sanislo, and J. Zahorjan. Interconnecting Heterogeneous Computer Systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(3):258-273, March 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Van Driessche and D. Roose. Dynamic Load Balancing with a Spectral Bis-section Algorithm for the Constrained Graph Partitioning Problem. In Proc. of High-Performance Computing and Networking, Milan, Italy, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Floros, J. S. Reeve, J. Clinckemaillie, S. Vlachoutsis, and G. Lonsdale. Comparative Efficiencies of Domain Decompositions. Parallel Computing, 21:1823-1835, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. F. Freund and H. J. Siegel. Heterogeneous Processing. IEEE Computer, (6):13-17, June 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Furuichi, K. Taki, and N. Ichiyoshi. A Multi-level Load Balancing Scheme for OR-Parallel Exhaustive Search Programs on the Multi-PSI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Priciples and Practice of Parallel Programming, pages 50-59, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. C. Grundwald, B. A. Nazief, and D. A. Reed. Empirical Comparison of Heuristic Load Distribution in Point-to-Point Multicomputer Networks. In Proc. of the 5th Distributed Memory Computins Conference, pages 984-993, April 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Ha'c and T. J. Johnson. Sensisitivity Study of the Load Balancing Algorithm in a Distributed System. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, pages 85-89, October 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. L. V. Kale. Comparing the Performance of Two Dynamic Load Distribution Methods. In Proc. of the Int'l. Conf. on Parallel Processing, pages 8-12, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Karypis and V. Kumar. Unstructured Tree Search on SIMD Parallel Computers. Technical Report 92-21, Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455, April 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Karypis and V. Kumar. Parallel Multilevel K-way Partitioning Scheme for Irregular Graphs. In Intl. Conference on Supercomputing, November, 17-22 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. T. Kechadi, P. Kiernan, D. Hegarty, and K. Dawson. Parallel Simulation Environment for Polymers, DNA and Protein Molecular Chains. In Proceedings of the International Conference and Exhibition on High-Performance Computing and Networking (HPCN'96), Brussels, Belgium, April 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. E. Keyes and W. D. Gropp. A Comparison of Domain Decomposition Techniques for Elliptic Partial Differential Equations and their Parallel Implementation. SIAM Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 8:166-202, March 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. A. Khokhar, V. K. Prasanna, M. E. Shaaban, and C-L. Wang. Heterogeneous Computing: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Computer, (6):18-27, June 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. H. Willebeek-Le Mair and A. P. Reeves. Strategies for Dynamic Load Balancing on Highly Parallel Computers. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 4(9), September 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. M. Ni and K. Hwang. Optimal Load Balancing in Multiple Processor System with Many jobs Classes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11:491-496, May 1985.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Patil and P. Banerjee. A Parallel Branch and Bound Algorithm for Test Generation. IEEE Transactions on Computer Aided Design, 9(9), March 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. R. Pilkington and S. B. Baden and. Dynamic Partitioning of Non-Uniform Structured Workloads with Spacefiling Curves. IEEE Transactions on parallel and Distributed Systems, 7(3):288-300, March 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. W. Shu and L. V. Kale. A Dynamic Scheduling Strategy for the Chare-Kernel System. In Proceedings of Supercomputing'89, pages 389-398, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. MPI: A Message-Passing Interface Standard, May 1994. URL: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/Projects/mpi/standard.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. L. G. Valiant. A Bridging model for parallel computation. Communications of the ACM, 33(8):103-111, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Xu and K. Hwang. Heuristic Methods for Dynamic Load Balancing in a Message-Passing Supercomputer. In Proc. of Supercomputer'90, pages 888-897, November 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Topology preserving dynamic load balancing for parallel molecular simulations

    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
      SC '97: Proceedings of the 1997 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
      November 1997
      921 pages
      ISBN:0897919858
      DOI:10.1145/509593

      Copyright © 1997 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: 15 November 1997

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,516of6,373submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader