Efficiency Guarantees for Parallel Incremental Algorithms under Relaxed Schedulers
March 20, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Dan Alistarh, Nikita Koval, Giorgi Nadiradze
arXiv ID
2003.09363
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Cross-listed
cs.DC
Citations
6
Venue
ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Several classic problems in graph processing and computational geometry are solved via incremental algorithms, which split computation into a series of small tasks acting on shared state, which gets updated progressively. While the sequential variant of such algorithms usually specifies a fixed (but sometimes random) order in which the tasks should be performed, a standard approach to parallelizing such algorithms is to relax this constraint to allow for out-of-order parallel execution. This is the case for parallel implementations of Dijkstra's single-source shortest-paths algorithm (SSSP), and for parallel Delaunay mesh triangulation. While many software frameworks parallelize incremental computation in this way, it is still not well understood whether this relaxed ordering approach can still provide any complexity guarantees. In this paper, we address this problem, and analyze the efficiency guarantees provided by a range of incremental algorithms when parallelized via relaxed schedulers. We show that, for algorithms such as Delaunay mesh triangulation and sorting by insertion, schedulers with a maximum relaxation factor of $k$ in terms of the maximum priority inversion allowed will introduce a maximum amount of wasted work of $O(log(n) poly (k) ), $ where $n$ is the number of tasks to be executed. For SSSP, we show that the additional work is $O(poly (k) d_{max} / w_{min}), $ where $d_{\max}$ is the maximum distance between two nodes, and $w_{min}$ is the minimum such distance. In practical settings where $n \gg k$, this suggests that the overheads of relaxation will be outweighed by the improved scalability of the relaxed scheduler. On the negative side, we provide lower bounds showing that certain algorithms will inherently incur a non-trivial amount of wasted work due to scheduler relaxation, even for relatively benign relaxed schedulers.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted