arXiv subjects

Grey Ballard

Publications and source records attributed to Grey Ballard.

41 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2012

Strong Scaling of Matrix Multiplication Algorithms and Memory-Independent Communication Lower Bounds

A parallel algorithm has perfect strong scaling if its running time on P processors is linear in 1/P, including all communication costs. Distributed-memory parallel algorithms for matrix multiplication with perfect strong scaling have only recently been found. One is based on classical matrix multiplication (Solomonik and Demmel, 2011), and one is based on Strassen's fast matrix multiplication (Ballard, Demmel, Holtz, Lipshitz, and Schwartz, 2012). Both algorithms scale perfectly, but only up to some number of processors where the inter-processor communication no longer scales. We obtain a memory-independent communication cost lower bound on classical and Strassen-based distributed-memory matrix multiplication algorithms. These bounds imply that no classical or Strassen-based parallel matrix multiplication algorithm can strongly scale perfectly beyond the ranges already attained by the two parallel algorithms mentioned above. The memory-independent bounds and the strong scaling bounds generalize to other algorithms.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2011

Graph Expansion and Communication Costs of Fast Matrix Multiplication

The communication cost of algorithms (also known as I/O-complexity) is shown to be closely related to the expansion properties of the corresponding computation graphs. We demonstrate this on Strassen's and other fast matrix multiplication algorithms, and obtain first lower bounds on their communication costs. In the sequential case, where the processor has a fast memory of size $M$, too small to store three $n$-by-$n$ matrices, the lower bound on the number of words moved between fast and slow memory is, for many of the matrix multiplication algorithms, $Ω((\frac{n}{\sqrt M})^{ω_0}\cdot M)$, where $ω_0$ is the exponent in the arithmetic count (e.g., $ω_0 = \lg 7$ for Strassen, and $ω_0 = 3$ for conventional matrix multiplication). With $p$ parallel processors, each with fast memory of size $M$, the lower bound is $p$ times smaller. These bounds are attainable both for sequential and for parallel algorithms and hence optimal. These bounds can also be attained by many fast algorithms in linear algebra (e.g., algorithms for LU, QR, and solving the Sylvester equation).

cs.DS↗

arXiv2010

Minimizing Communication for Eigenproblems and the Singular Value Decomposition

Algorithms have two costs: arithmetic and communication. The latter represents the cost of moving data, either between levels of a memory hierarchy, or between processors over a network. Communication often dominates arithmetic and represents a rapidly increasing proportion of the total cost, so we seek algorithms that minimize communication. In \cite{BDHS10} lower bounds were presented on the amount of communication required for essentially all $O(n^3)$-like algorithms for linear algebra, including eigenvalue problems and the SVD. Conventional algorithms, including those currently implemented in (Sca)LAPACK, perform asymptotically more communication than these lower bounds require. In this paper we present parallel and sequential eigenvalue algorithms (for pencils, nonsymmetric matrices, and symmetric matrices) and SVD algorithms that do attain these lower bounds, and analyze their convergence and communication costs.

math.NA↗

arXiv2010

Communication-optimal Parallel and Sequential Cholesky Decomposition

Numerical algorithms have two kinds of costs: arithmetic and communication, by which we mean either moving data between levels of a memory hierarchy (in the sequential case) or over a network connecting processors (in the parallel case). Communication costs often dominate arithmetic costs, so it is of interest to design algorithms minimizing communication. In this paper we first extend known lower bounds on the communication cost (both for bandwidth and for latency) of conventional (O(n^3)) matrix multiplication to Cholesky factorization, which is used for solving dense symmetric positive definite linear systems. Second, we compare the costs of various Cholesky decomposition implementations to these lower bounds and identify the algorithms and data structures that attain them. In the sequential case, we consider both the two-level and hierarchical memory models. Combined with prior results in [13, 14, 15], this gives a set of communication-optimal algorithms for O(n^3) implementations of the three basic factorizations of dense linear algebra: LU with pivoting, QR and Cholesky. But it goes beyond this prior work on sequential LU by optimizing communication for any number of levels of memory hierarchy.

math.NA↗

arXiv2009

Minimizing Communication in Linear Algebra

In 1981 Hong and Kung proved a lower bound on the amount of communication needed to perform dense, matrix-multiplication using the conventional $O(n^3)$ algorithm, where the input matrices were too large to fit in the small, fast memory. In 2004 Irony, Toledo and Tiskin gave a new proof of this result and extended it to the parallel case. In both cases the lower bound may be expressed as $Ω$(#arithmetic operations / $\sqrt{M}$), where M is the size of the fast memory (or local memory in the parallel case). Here we generalize these results to a much wider variety of algorithms, including LU factorization, Cholesky factorization, $LDL^T$ factorization, QR factorization, algorithms for eigenvalues and singular values, i.e., essentially all direct methods of linear algebra. The proof works for dense or sparse matrices, and for sequential or parallel algorithms. In addition to lower bounds on the amount of data moved (bandwidth) we get lower bounds on the number of messages required to move it (latency). We illustrate how to extend our lower bound technique to compositions of linear algebra operations (like computing powers of a matrix), to decide whether it is enough to call a sequence of simpler optimal algorithms (like matrix multiplication) to minimize communication, or if we can do better. We give examples of both. We also show how to extend our lower bounds to certain graph theoretic problems. We point out recently designed algorithms for dense LU, Cholesky, QR, eigenvalue and the SVD problems that attain these lower bounds; implementations of LU and QR show large speedups over conventional linear algebra algorithms in standard libraries like LAPACK and ScaLAPACK. Many open problems remain.

cs.CC↗