Towards an Achievable Performance for the Loop Nests

Numerous code optimization techniques, including loop nest optimizations, have been developed over the last four decades. Loop optimization techniques transform loop nests to improve the performance of the code on a target architecture, including exposing parallelism. Finding and evaluating an optimal, semantic-preserving sequence of transformations is a complex problem. The sequence is guided using heuristics and/or analytical models and there is no way of knowing how close it gets to optimal performance or if there is any headroom for improvement. This paper makes two contributions. First, it uses a comparative analysis of loop optimizations/transformations across multiple compilers to determine how much headroom may exist for each compiler. And second, it presents an approach to characterize the loop nests based on their hardware performance counter values and a Machine Learning approach that predicts which compiler will generate the fastest code for a loop nest. The prediction is made for both auto-vectorized, serial compilation and for auto-parallelization. The results show that the headroom for state-of-the-art compilers ranges from 1.10x to 1.42x for the serial code and from 1.30x to 1.71x for the auto-parallelized code. These results are based on the Machine Learning predictions.Comment: Accepted at the 31st International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing (LCPC 2018

Global-scale evaluation of 22 precipitation datasets using gauge observations and hydrological modeling

We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of 22 gridded (quasi-)global (sub-)daily precipitation (P) datasets for the period 2000–2016. Thirteen non-gauge-corrected P datasets were evaluated using daily P gauge observations from 76,086 gauges worldwide. Another nine gauge-corrected datasets were evaluated using hydrological modeling, by calibrating the conceptual model HBV against streamflow records for each of 9053 small to medium-sized (<50,000 km2) catchments worldwide, and comparing the resulting performance. Marked differences in spatio-temporal patterns and accuracy were found among the datasets. Among the uncorrected P datasets, the satellite- and reanalysis-based MSWEP-ng V1.2 and V2.0 datasets generally showed the best temporal correlations with the gauge observations, followed by the reanalyses (ERA-Interim, JRA-55, and NCEP-CFSR) and the satellite- and reanalysis-based CHIRP V2.0 dataset, the estimates based primarily on passive microwave remote sensing of rainfall (CMORPH V1.0, GSMaP V5/6, and TMPA 3B42RT V7) or near-surface soil moisture (SM2RAIN-ASCAT), and finally, estimates based primarily on thermal infrared imagery (GridSat V1.0, PERSIANN, and PERSIANN-CCS). Two of the three reanalyses (ERA-Interim and JRA-55) unexpectedly obtained lower trend errors than the satellite datasets. Among the corrected P datasets, the ones directly incorporating daily gauge data (CPC Unified and MSWEP V1.2 and V2.0) generally provided the best calibration scores, although the good performance of the fully gauge-based CPC Unified is unlikely to translate to sparsely or ungauged regions. Next best results were obtained with P estimates directly incorporating temporally coarser gauge data (CHIRPS V2.0, GPCP-1DD V1.2, TMPA 3B42 V7, and WFDEI-CRU), which in turn outperformed the one indirectly incorporating gauge data through another multi-source dataset (PERSIANN-CDR V1R1). Our results highlight large differences in estimation accuracy, and hence, the importance of P dataset selection in both research and operational applications. The good performance of MSWEP emphasizes that careful data merging can exploit the complementary strengths of gauge-, satellite- and reanalysis-based P estimates