DMCA
Performance Evaluation of Two Home-Based Lazy Release Consistency Protocols for Shared Virtual Memory Systems (1996)
Cached
Download Links
- [www.cs.princeton.edu]
- [www.usenix.org]
- [ftp.cs.princeton.edu]
- [jazz.snu.ac.kr]
- [opera.ucsd.edu]
- DBLP
Other Repositories/Bibliography
| Venue: | In Proceedings of the Operating Systems Design and Implementation Symposium |
| Citations: | 160 - 20 self |
BibTeX
@INPROCEEDINGS{Zhou96performanceevaluation,
author = {Yuanyuan Zhou and Liviu Iftode and Kai Li},
title = {Performance Evaluation of Two Home-Based Lazy Release Consistency Protocols for Shared Virtual Memory Systems},
booktitle = {In Proceedings of the Operating Systems Design and Implementation Symposium},
year = {1996},
pages = {75--88}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
This paper investigates the performance of shared virtual memory protocols on large-scale multicomputers. Using experiments on a 64-node Paragon, we show that the traditional Lazy Release Consistency (LRC) protocol does not scale well, because of the large number of messages it requires, the large amount of memory it consumes for protocol overhead data, and because of the diculty of garbage collecting that data. To achieve more scalable performance, we introduce and evaluate two new protocols. The rst, Home-based LRC (HLRC), is based on the Automatic Update Release Consistency (AURC) protocol. Like AURC, HLRC maintains a home for each page to which all updates are propagated and from which all copies are derived. Unlike AURC, HLRC requires no specialized hardware support. We nd that the use of homes provides substantial improvements in performance and scalability over LRC. Our second protocol, called Overlapped Home-based LRC (OHLRC), takes advantage of the communication processor found on each node of the Paragon to ooad some of the protocol overhead of HLRC from the critical path followed by the compute processor. We nd that OHLRC provides modest improvements over HLRC. We also apply overlapping to the base LRC protocol, with similar results. Our experiments were done using ve of the Splash-2 benchmarks. We report overall execution times, as well as detailed breakdowns of elapsed time, message trac, and memory use for each of the protocols. 1
Keyphrases
shared virtual memory system performance evaluation home-based lazy release consistency protocol home-based lrc traditional lazy release consistency critical path message trac memory use specialized hardware support similar result detailed breakdown large number substantial improvement overall execution time elapsed time base lrc protocol scalable performance protocol overhead data communication processor large-scale multicomputers 64-node paragon splash-2 benchmark protocol overhead compute processor second protocol virtual memory protocol modest improvement new protocol automatic update release consistency large amount
