HeTM: Transactional Memory for Heterogeneous Systems

Modern heterogeneous computing architectures, which couple multi-core CPUs with discrete many-core GPUs (or other specialized hardware accelerators), enable unprecedented peak performance and energy efficiency levels. Unfortunately, though, developing applications that can take full advantage of the potential of heterogeneous systems is a notoriously hard task. This work takes a step towards reducing the complexity of programming heterogeneous systems by introducing the abstraction of Heterogeneous Transactional Memory (HeTM). HeTM provides programmers with the illusion of a single memory region, shared among the CPUs and the (discrete) GPU(s) of a heterogeneous system, with support for atomic transactions. Besides introducing the abstract semantics and programming model of HeTM, we present the design and evaluation of a concrete implementation of the proposed abstraction, which we named Speculative HeTM (SHeTM). SHeTM makes use of a novel design that leverages on speculative techniques and aims at hiding the inherently large communication latency between CPUs and discrete GPUs and at minimizing inter-device synchronization overhead. SHeTM is based on a modular and extensible design that allows for easily integrating alternative TM implementations on the CPU's and GPU's sides, which allows the flexibility to adopt, on either side, the TM implementation (e.g., in hardware or software) that best fits the applications' workload and the architectural characteristics of the processing unit. We demonstrate the efficiency of the SHeTM via an extensive quantitative study based both on synthetic benchmarks and on a porting of a popular object caching system.Comment: The current work was accepted in the 28th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT'19

Transparent multi-core speculative parallelization of DES models with event and cross-state dependencies

In this article we tackle transparent parallelization of Discrete Event Simulation (DES) models to be run on top of multi-core machines according to speculative schemes. The innovation in our proposal lies in that we consider a more general programming and execution model, compared to the one targeted by state of the art PDES platforms, where the boundaries of the state portion accessible while processing an event at a specific simulation object do not limit access to the actual object state, or to shared global variables. Rather, the simulation object is allowed to access (and alter) the state of any other object, thus causing what we term cross-state dependency. We note that this model exactly complies with typical (easy to manage) sequential-style DES programming, where a (dynamically-allocated) state portion of object A can be accessed by object B in either read or write mode (or both) by, e.g., passing a pointer to B as the payload of a scheduled simulation event. However, while read/write memory accesses performed in the sequential run are always guaranteed to observe (and to give rise to) a consistent snapshot of the state of the simulation model, consistency is not automatically guaranteed in case of parallelization and concurrent execution of simulation objects with cross-state dependencies. We cope with such a consistency issue, and its application-transparent support, in the context of parallel and optimistic executions. This is achieved by introducing an advanced memory management architecture, able to efficiently detect read/write accesses by concurrent objects to whichever object state in an application transparent manner, together with advanced synchronization mechanisms providing the advantage of exploiting parallelism in the underlying multi-core architecture while transparently handling both cross-state and traditional event-based dependencies. Our proposal targets Linux and has been integrated with the ROOT-Sim open source optimistic simulation platform, although its design principles, and most parts of the developed software, are of general relevance. Copyright 2014 ACM

Speculation in Parallel and Distributed Event Processing Systems

Event stream processing (ESP) applications enable the real-time processing of continuous flows of data. Algorithmic trading, network monitoring, and processing data from sensor networks are good examples of applications that traditionally rely upon ESP systems. In addition, technological advances are resulting in an increasing number of devices that are network enabled, producing information that can be automatically collected and processed. This increasing availability of on-line data motivates the development of new and more sophisticated applications that require low-latency processing of large volumes of data. ESP applications are composed of an acyclic graph of operators that is traversed by the data. Inside each operator, the events can be transformed, aggregated, enriched, or filtered out. Some of these operations depend only on the current input events, such operations are called stateless. Other operations, however, depend not only on the current event, but also on a state built during the processing of previous events. Such operations are, therefore, named stateful. As the number of ESP applications grows, there are increasingly strong requirements, which are often difficult to satisfy. In this dissertation, we address two challenges created by the use of stateful operations in a ESP application: (i) stateful operators can be bottlenecks because they are sensitive to the order of events and cannot be trivially parallelized by replication; and (ii), if failures are to be tolerated, the accumulated state of an stateful operator needs to be saved, saving this state traditionally imposes considerable performance costs. Our approach is to evaluate the use of speculation to address these two issues. For handling ordering and parallelization issues in a stateful operator, we propose a speculative approach that both reduces latency when the operator must wait for the correct ordering of the events and improves throughput when the operation in hand is parallelizable. In addition, our approach does not require that user understand concurrent programming or that he or she needs to consider out-of-order execution when writing the operations. For fault-tolerant applications, traditional approaches have imposed prohibitive performance costs due to pessimistic schemes. We extend such approaches, using speculation to mask the cost of fault tolerance.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Event stream processing systems ......................... 1 1.2 Running example ................................. 3 1.3 Challenges and contributions ........................... 4 1.4 Outline ...................................... 6 2 Background 7 2.1 Event stream processing ............................. 7 2.1.1 State in operators: Windows and synopses ............................ 8 2.1.2 Types of operators ............................ 12 2.1.3 Our prototype system........................... 13 2.2 Software transactional memory.......................... 18 2.2.1 Overview ................................. 18 2.2.2 Memory operations............................ 19 2.3 Fault tolerance in distributed systems ...................................... 23 2.3.1 Failure model and failure detection ...................................... 23 2.3.2 Recovery semantics............................ 24 2.3.3 Active and passive replication ...................... 24 2.4 Summary ..................................... 26 3 Extending event stream processing systems with speculation 27 3.1 Motivation..................................... 27 3.2 Goals ....................................... 28 3.3 Local versus distributed speculation ....................... 29 3.4 Models and assumptions ............................. 29 3.4.1 Operators................................. 30 3.4.2 Events................................... 30 3.4.3 Failures .................................. 31 4 Local speculation 33 4.1 Overview ..................................... 33 4.2 Requirements ................................... 35 4.2.1 Order ................................... 35 4.2.2 Aborts................................... 37 4.2.3 Optimism control ............................. 38 4.2.4 Notifications ............................... 39 4.3 Applications.................................... 40 4.3.1 Out-of-order processing ......................... 40 4.3.2 Optimistic parallelization......................... 42 4.4 Extensions..................................... 44 4.4.1 Avoiding unnecessary aborts ....................... 44 4.4.2 Making aborts unnecessary........................ 45 4.5 Evaluation..................................... 47 4.5.1 Overhead of speculation ......................... 47 4.5.2 Cost of misspeculation .......................... 50 4.5.3 Out-of-order and parallel processing micro benchmarks ........... 53 4.5.4 Behavior with example operators .................... 57 4.6 Summary ..................................... 60 5 Distributed speculation 63 5.1 Overview ..................................... 63 5.2 Requirements ................................... 64 5.2.1 Speculative events ............................ 64 5.2.2 Speculative accesses ........................... 69 5.2.3 Reliable ordered broadcast with optimistic delivery .................. 72 5.3 Applications .................................... 75 5.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ................................ 75 5.3.2 Active replication ............................. 80 5.4 Extensions ..................................... 82 5.4.1 Active replication and software bugs ..................................... 82 5.4.2 Enabling operators to output multiple events ........................ 87 5.5 Evaluation .................................... 87 5.5.1 Passive replication ............................ 88 5.5.2 Active replication ............................. 88 5.6 Summary ..................................... 93 6 Related work 95 6.1 Event stream processing engines ......................... 95 6.2 Parallelization and optimistic computing ................................ 97 6.2.1 Speculation ................................ 97 6.2.2 Optimistic parallelization ......................... 98 6.2.3 Parallelization in event processing .................................... 99 6.2.4 Speculation in event processing ..................... 99 6.3 Fault tolerance .................................. 100 6.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ............................... 100 6.3.2 Active replication ............................ 101 6.3.3 Fault tolerance in event stream processing systems ............. 103 7 Conclusions 105 7.1 Summary of contributions ............................ 105 7.2 Challenges and future work ............................ 106 Appendices Publications 107 Pseudocode for the consensus protocol 10

Speculation in Parallel and Distributed Event Processing Systems

Event stream processing (ESP) applications enable the real-time processing of continuous flows of data. Algorithmic trading, network monitoring, and processing data from sensor networks are good examples of applications that traditionally rely upon ESP systems. In addition, technological advances are resulting in an increasing number of devices that are network enabled, producing information that can be automatically collected and processed. This increasing availability of on-line data motivates the development of new and more sophisticated applications that require low-latency processing of large volumes of data. ESP applications are composed of an acyclic graph of operators that is traversed by the data. Inside each operator, the events can be transformed, aggregated, enriched, or filtered out. Some of these operations depend only on the current input events, such operations are called stateless. Other operations, however, depend not only on the current event, but also on a state built during the processing of previous events. Such operations are, therefore, named stateful. As the number of ESP applications grows, there are increasingly strong requirements, which are often difficult to satisfy. In this dissertation, we address two challenges created by the use of stateful operations in a ESP application: (i) stateful operators can be bottlenecks because they are sensitive to the order of events and cannot be trivially parallelized by replication; and (ii), if failures are to be tolerated, the accumulated state of an stateful operator needs to be saved, saving this state traditionally imposes considerable performance costs. Our approach is to evaluate the use of speculation to address these two issues. For handling ordering and parallelization issues in a stateful operator, we propose a speculative approach that both reduces latency when the operator must wait for the correct ordering of the events and improves throughput when the operation in hand is parallelizable. In addition, our approach does not require that user understand concurrent programming or that he or she needs to consider out-of-order execution when writing the operations. For fault-tolerant applications, traditional approaches have imposed prohibitive performance costs due to pessimistic schemes. We extend such approaches, using speculation to mask the cost of fault tolerance.:1 Introduction 1 1.1 Event stream processing systems ......................... 1 1.2 Running example ................................. 3 1.3 Challenges and contributions ........................... 4 1.4 Outline ...................................... 6 2 Background 7 2.1 Event stream processing ............................. 7 2.1.1 State in operators: Windows and synopses ............................ 8 2.1.2 Types of operators ............................ 12 2.1.3 Our prototype system........................... 13 2.2 Software transactional memory.......................... 18 2.2.1 Overview ................................. 18 2.2.2 Memory operations............................ 19 2.3 Fault tolerance in distributed systems ...................................... 23 2.3.1 Failure model and failure detection ...................................... 23 2.3.2 Recovery semantics............................ 24 2.3.3 Active and passive replication ...................... 24 2.4 Summary ..................................... 26 3 Extending event stream processing systems with speculation 27 3.1 Motivation..................................... 27 3.2 Goals ....................................... 28 3.3 Local versus distributed speculation ....................... 29 3.4 Models and assumptions ............................. 29 3.4.1 Operators................................. 30 3.4.2 Events................................... 30 3.4.3 Failures .................................. 31 4 Local speculation 33 4.1 Overview ..................................... 33 4.2 Requirements ................................... 35 4.2.1 Order ................................... 35 4.2.2 Aborts................................... 37 4.2.3 Optimism control ............................. 38 4.2.4 Notifications ............................... 39 4.3 Applications.................................... 40 4.3.1 Out-of-order processing ......................... 40 4.3.2 Optimistic parallelization......................... 42 4.4 Extensions..................................... 44 4.4.1 Avoiding unnecessary aborts ....................... 44 4.4.2 Making aborts unnecessary........................ 45 4.5 Evaluation..................................... 47 4.5.1 Overhead of speculation ......................... 47 4.5.2 Cost of misspeculation .......................... 50 4.5.3 Out-of-order and parallel processing micro benchmarks ........... 53 4.5.4 Behavior with example operators .................... 57 4.6 Summary ..................................... 60 5 Distributed speculation 63 5.1 Overview ..................................... 63 5.2 Requirements ................................... 64 5.2.1 Speculative events ............................ 64 5.2.2 Speculative accesses ........................... 69 5.2.3 Reliable ordered broadcast with optimistic delivery .................. 72 5.3 Applications .................................... 75 5.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ................................ 75 5.3.2 Active replication ............................. 80 5.4 Extensions ..................................... 82 5.4.1 Active replication and software bugs ..................................... 82 5.4.2 Enabling operators to output multiple events ........................ 87 5.5 Evaluation .................................... 87 5.5.1 Passive replication ............................ 88 5.5.2 Active replication ............................. 88 5.6 Summary ..................................... 93 6 Related work 95 6.1 Event stream processing engines ......................... 95 6.2 Parallelization and optimistic computing ................................ 97 6.2.1 Speculation ................................ 97 6.2.2 Optimistic parallelization ......................... 98 6.2.3 Parallelization in event processing .................................... 99 6.2.4 Speculation in event processing ..................... 99 6.3 Fault tolerance .................................. 100 6.3.1 Passive replication and rollback recovery ............................... 100 6.3.2 Active replication ............................ 101 6.3.3 Fault tolerance in event stream processing systems ............. 103 7 Conclusions 105 7.1 Summary of contributions ............................ 105 7.2 Challenges and future work ............................ 106 Appendices Publications 107 Pseudocode for the consensus protocol 10

Energy-efficient and high-performance lock speculation hardware for embedded multicore systems

Embedded systems are becoming increasingly common in everyday life and like their general-purpose counterparts, they have shifted towards shared memory multicore architectures. However, they are much more resource constrained, and as they often run on batteries, energy efficiency becomes critically important. In such systems, achieving high concurrency is a key demand for delivering satisfactory performance at low energy cost. In order to achieve this high concurrency, consistency across the shared memory hierarchy must be accomplished in a cost-effective manner in terms of performance, energy, and implementation complexity. In this article, we propose Embedded-Spec, a hardware solution for supporting transparent lock speculation, without the requirement for special supporting instructions. Using this approach, we evaluate the energy consumption and performance of a suite of benchmarks, exploring a range of contention management and retry policies. We conclude that for resource-constrained platforms, lock speculation can provide real benefits in terms of improved concurrency and energy efficiency, as long as the underlying hardware support is carefully configured.This work is supported in part by NSF under Grants CCF-0903384, CCF-0903295, CNS-1319495, and CNS-1319095 as well the Semiconductor Research Corporation under grant number 1983.001. (CCF-0903384 - NSF; CCF-0903295 - NSF; CNS-1319495 - NSF; CNS-1319095 - NSF; 1983.001 - Semiconductor Research Corporation

A fine-grain time-sharing Time Warp system

Although Parallel Discrete Event Simulation (PDES) platforms relying on the Time Warp (optimistic) synchronization protocol already allow for exploiting parallelism, several techniques have been proposed to further favor performance. Among them we can mention optimized approaches for state restore, as well as techniques for load balancing or (dynamically) controlling the speculation degree, the latter being specifically targeted at reducing the incidence of causality errors leading to waste of computation. However, in state of the art Time Warp systems, events’ processing is not preemptable, which may prevent the possibility to promptly react to the injection of higher priority (say lower timestamp) events. Delaying the processing of these events may, in turn, give rise to higher incidence of incorrect speculation. In this article we present the design and realization of a fine-grain time-sharing Time Warp system, to be run on multi-core Linux machines, which makes systematic use of event preemption in order to dynamically reassign the CPU to higher priority events/tasks. Our proposal is based on a truly dual mode execution, application vs platform, which includes a timer-interrupt based support for bringing control back to platform mode for possible CPU reassignment according to very fine grain periods. The latter facility is offered by an ad-hoc timer-interrupt management module for Linux, which we release, together with the overall time-sharing support, within the open source ROOT-Sim platform. An experimental assessment based on the classical PHOLD benchmark and two real world models is presented, which shows how our proposal effectively leads to the reduction of the incidence of causality errors, as compared to traditional Time Warp, especially when running with higher degrees of parallelism

The parallel event loop model and runtime: a parallel programming model and runtime system for safe event-based parallel programming

Recent trends in programming models for server-side development have shown an increasing popularity of event-based single- threaded programming models based on the combination of dynamic languages such as JavaScript and event-based runtime systems for asynchronous I/O management such as Node.JS. Reasons for the success of such models are the simplicity of the single-threaded event-based programming model as well as the growing popularity of the Cloud as a deployment platform for Web applications. Unfortunately, the popularity of single-threaded models comes at the price of performance and scalability, as single-threaded event-based models present limitations when parallel processing is needed, and traditional approaches to concurrency such as threads and locks don't play well with event-based systems. This dissertation proposes a programming model and a runtime system to overcome such limitations by enabling single-threaded event-based applications with support for speculative parallel execution. The model, called Parallel Event Loop, has the goal of bringing parallel execution to the domain of single-threaded event-based programming without relaxing the main characteristics of the single-threaded model, and therefore providing developers with the impression of a safe, single-threaded, runtime. Rather than supporting only pure single-threaded programming, however, the parallel event loop can also be used to derive safe, high-level, parallel programming models characterized by a strong compatibility with single-threaded runtimes. We describe three distinct implementations of speculative runtimes enabling the parallel execution of event-based applications. The first implementation we describe is a pessimistic runtime system based on locks to implement speculative parallelization. The second and the third implementations are based on two distinct optimistic runtimes using software transactional memory. Each of the implementations supports the parallelization of applications written using an asynchronous single-threaded programming style, and each of them enables applications to benefit from parallel execution

The parallel event loop model and runtime: a parallel programming model and runtime system for safe event-based parallel programming

Recent trends in programming models for server-side development have shown an increasing popularity of event-based single- threaded programming models based on the combination of dynamic languages such as JavaScript and event-based runtime systems for asynchronous I/O management such as Node.JS. Reasons for the success of such models are the simplicity of the single-threaded event-based programming model as well as the growing popularity of the Cloud as a deployment platform for Web applications. Unfortunately, the popularity of single-threaded models comes at the price of performance and scalability, as single-threaded event-based models present limitations when parallel processing is needed, and traditional approaches to concurrency such as threads and locks don't play well with event-based systems. This dissertation proposes a programming model and a runtime system to overcome such limitations by enabling single-threaded event-based applications with support for speculative parallel execution. The model, called Parallel Event Loop, has the goal of bringing parallel execution to the domain of single-threaded event-based programming without relaxing the main characteristics of the single-threaded model, and therefore providing developers with the impression of a safe, single-threaded, runtime. Rather than supporting only pure single-threaded programming, however, the parallel event loop can also be used to derive safe, high-level, parallel programming models characterized by a strong compatibility with single-threaded runtimes. We describe three distinct implementations of speculative runtimes enabling the parallel execution of event-based applications. The first implementation we describe is a pessimistic runtime system based on locks to implement speculative parallelization. The second and the third implementations are based on two distinct optimistic runtimes using software transactional memory. Each of the implementations supports the parallelization of applications written using an asynchronous single-threaded programming style, and each of them enables applications to benefit from parallel execution