A comparative performance study of common and popular task-centric programming frameworks

SUMMARYProgrammers today face a bewildering array of parallel programming models and tools, making it difficult to choose an appropriate one for each application. An increasingly popular programming model supporting structured parallel programming patterns in a portable and composable manner is the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Concurrency and computation Vol. 27; no. 1; pp. 1 - 28
Main Authors: Podobas, Artur, Brorsson, Mats, Faxén, Karl-Filip
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2015
Subjects:
Arrays
cilk
Concurrency
Flexibility
Mathematical models
OpenMP
Parallel programming
Programmers
Programming
scheduling task performance
Tasks
TBB
TILEPro64 NUMA scheduling
wool
ISSN:1532-0626, 1532-0634, 1532-0634
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:SUMMARYProgrammers today face a bewildering array of parallel programming models and tools, making it difficult to choose an appropriate one for each application. An increasingly popular programming model supporting structured parallel programming patterns in a portable and composable manner is the task‐centric programming model. In this study, we compare several popular task‐centric programming frameworks, including Cilk Plus, Threading Building Blocks, and various implementations of OpenMP 3.0. We have analyzed their performance on the Barcelona OpenMP Tasking Suite benchmark suite both on a 48‐core AMD Opteron 6172 server and a 64‐core TILEPro64 embedded many‐core processor. Our results show that the OpenMP offers the highest flexibility for programmers, and this flexibility comes to a cost. Frameworks supporting only a specific and more restrictive model, such as Cilk Plus and Threading Building Blocks, are generally more efficient both in terms of performance and energy consumption. However, Intel's implementation of OpenMP tasks performs the best and closest to the specialized run‐time systems. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliography:ArticleID:CPE3186
istex:AAA117CDF8DC11D00E21BFAEB87152CCDE39C928
ark:/67375/WNG-M7WLH9KK-X
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1532-0626
1532-0634
1532-0634
DOI:10.1002/cpe.3186