Memory performance of and-parallel prolog on shared-memory architectures

The goal of the RAP-WAM AND-parallel Prolog abstract architecture is to provide inference speeds significantly beyond those of sequential systems, while supporting Prolog semantics and preserving sequential performance and storage efficiency. This paper presents simulation results supporting these claims with special emphasis on memory performance on a two-level sharedmemory multiprocessor organization. Several solutions to the cache coherency problem are analyzed. It is shown that RAP-WAM offers good locality and storage efficiency and that it can effectively take advantage of broadcast caches. It is argued that speeds in excess of 2 ML IPS on real applications exhibiting medium parallelism can be attained with current technology

Using formal methods to develop WS-BPEL applications

In recent years, WS-BPEL has become a de facto standard language for orchestration of Web Services. However, there are still some well-known difficulties that make programming in WS-BPEL a tricky task. In this paper, we firstly point out major loose points of the WS-BPEL specification by means of many examples, some of which are also exploited to test and compare the behaviour of three of the most known freely available WS-BPEL engines. We show that, as a matter of fact, these engines implement different semantics, which undermines portability of WS-BPEL programs over different platforms. Then we introduce Blite, a prototypical orchestration language equipped with a formal operational semantics, which is closely inspired by, but simpler than, WS-BPEL. Indeed, Blite is designed around some of WS-BPEL distinctive features like partner links, process termination, message correlation, long-running business transactions and compensation handlers. Finally, we present BliteC, a software tool supporting a rapid and easy development of WS-BPEL applications via translation of service orchestrations written in Blite into executable WS-BPEL programs. We illustrate our approach by means of a running example borrowed from the official specification of WS-BPEL

Parallel Finger Search Structures

In this paper we present two versions of a parallel finger structure FS on p processors that supports searches, insertions and deletions, and has a finger at each end. This is to our knowledge the first implementation of a parallel search structure that is work-optimal with respect to the finger bound and yet has very good parallelism (within a factor of O(log p)^2) of optimal). We utilize an extended implicit batching framework that transparently facilitates the use of FS by any parallel program P that is modelled by a dynamically generated DAG D where each node is either a unit-time instruction or a call to FS. The work done by FS is bounded by the finger bound F_L (for some linearization L of D), i.e. each operation on an item with distance r from a finger takes O(log r+1) amortized work. Running P using the simpler version takes O((T_1+F_L)/p + T_infty + d * ((log p)^2 + log n)) time on a greedy scheduler, where T_1, T_infty are the size and span of D respectively, and n is the maximum number of items in FS, and d is the maximum number of calls to FS along any path in D. Using the faster version, this is reduced to O((T_1+F_L)/p + T_infty + d *(log p)^2 + s_L) time, where s_L is the weighted span of D where each call to FS is weighted by its cost according to F_L. FS can be extended to a fixed number of movable fingers. The data structures in our paper fit into the dynamic multithreading paradigm, and their performance bounds are directly composable with other data structures given in the same paradigm. Also, the results can be translated to practical implementations using work-stealing schedulers

Parallel Working-Set Search Structures

In this paper we present two versions of a parallel working-set map on p processors that supports searches, insertions and deletions. In both versions, the total work of all operations when the map has size at least p is bounded by the working-set bound, i.e., the cost of an item depends on how recently it was accessed (for some linearization): accessing an item in the map with recency r takes O(1+log r) work. In the simpler version each map operation has O((log p)^2+log n) span (where n is the maximum size of the map). In the pipelined version each map operation on an item with recency r has O((log p)^2+log r) span. (Operations in parallel may have overlapping span; span is additive only for operations in sequence.) Both data structures are designed to be used by a dynamic multithreading parallel program that at each step executes a unit-time instruction or makes a data structure call. To achieve the stated bounds, the pipelined data structure requires a weak-priority scheduler, which supports a limited form of 2-level prioritization. At the end we explain how the results translate to practical implementations using work-stealing schedulers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first parallel implementation of a self-adjusting search structure where the cost of an operation adapts to the access sequence. A corollary of the working-set bound is that it achieves work static optimality: the total work is bounded by the access costs in an optimal static search tree.Comment: Authors' version of a paper accepted to SPAA 201

Divided we stand: Parallel distributed stack memory management

We present an overview of the stack-based memory management techniques that we used in our non-deterministic and-parallel Prolog systems: &-Prolog and DASWAM. We believe that the problems associated with non-deterministic and-parallel systems are more general than those encountered in or-parallel and deterministic and-parallel systems, which can be seen as subsets of this more general case. We develop on the previously proposed "marker scheme", lifting some of the restrictions associated with the selection of goals while keeping (virtual) memory consumption down. We also review some of the other problems associated with the stack-based management scheme, such as handling of forward and backward execution, cut, and roll-backs