Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Says Multicore is Bad News For Supercomputers
Richard Kelleher writes "It seems the current design of multi-core processors is
not good for the design of supercomputers. According to IEEE: 'Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, have simulated future high-performance computers containing the 8-core, 16-core, and 32-core microprocessors that chip makers say are the future of the industry. The results are distressing. Because of limited memory bandwidth and memory-management schemes that are poorly suited to supercomputers, the performance of these machines would level off or even decline with more cores.'"
Sounds like its time for supercomputers to go their own way again. I'd love to see some new technologies.
If you make a simulation like that keeping the memory interface constant then of course you'll see diminishing returns. That's why we're still not running plain old FSBs as AMD has HyperTransport, Intel has QPI, the AMD Horus system expands it up to 32 sockets / 128 cores and I'm sure something similar can and will be built as a supercomputer backplane. The header is more than a little sensationalist...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Once we get to 32 or 64 core cpus that cost less than $100 (say, five years), I'd HATE to have a beowulf cluster of those!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
>>>"After about 8 cores, there's no improvement," says James Peery, director of computation, computers, information, and mathematics at Sandia. "At 16 cores, it looks like 2 cores."
>>>
That's interesting but how does it affect us, the users of "personal computers"? Can we extrapolate that buying a CPU larger than 8 cores is a waste of dollars, because it will actually run slower?
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
That to remove the 'memory wall', main memory and CPU will have to be integrated.
I mean, look at general-purpose computing systems past & present: there is a somewhat constant relation between CPU speed and memory size. Ever seen a 1 MHz. system with a GB. RAM? Ever seen a GHz. CPU coupled with a single KB. of RAM? Why not? Because with very few exceptions, heavier compute loads also require more memory space.
Just like the line between GPU and CPU is slowly blurring, it's just obvious that the parts with the most intensive communication, should be the parts closest together. Instead of doubling nummber of cores from 8 to 16, why not use those extra transistors to stack main memory directly on top of the CPU core(s)? Main memory would then be split up in little sections, with each section on top of a particular CPU core. I read sometime that semiconductor processes that are suitable for CPU's, aren't that good for memory chips (and vice versa) - don't know if that's true but if so, let the engineers figure that out.
Ofcourse things are different with supercomputers. If you have a 1000 'processing units', where each PU would consist of say, 32 cores and some GB's RAM on a single die, that would create a memory wall between 'local' and 'remote' memory. The on-die section of main memory would be accessible at near CPU speed, main memory that is part of other PU's would be 'remote', and slow. Hey wait, sounds like a compute cluster of some kind... (so scientists already know how to deal with it).
Perhaps the trick would be to make access to memory found on one of the other PU's transparent, so that programming-wise there's no visible distinction between 'local' and 'remote' memory. With some intelligent routing to migrate blocks of data closer towards the core(s) that access it? Maybe that could be done in hardware, maybe that's better done on a software level. Either way: the technology isn't the problem, it's an architectural / software problem.
So your saying that next generation processors need a gig of cache. Plus 4gigs of ram.
I think what is really needed is new OS designs. Something that is no longer tied quite as close to the hardware. So that new hardware ideas can be tried.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I once heard someone define a supercomputer as a $10 million memory system with a CPU thrown in for free. One of the interesting CPU benchmarks is to see how much data it can move when the cache is blown out.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This doesn't quite make sense to me. You wouldn't replace a 64 CPU supercomputer with a single 64 core CPU, but would instead use 64 multicore CPUs. As production switches to multicore, the cost of producing multiple cores will be about the same as the single core CPUs of old. So eventually you'll get 4 cores from the price of 2, then get 8 cores from the price of 4, then 16 for the price of 8, etc. So the extra cores in the CPUs of a supercomputer are like a bonus, and if software can be written to utilize those extra cores in some way that benefits performance, then that's a good thing.
Better known as 318230.
For a given node count, we've seen increases in performance. The claimed problem is that for the workloads that concern these researchers, they don't see people mentioning significant enhancements to the fundamental memory architecture projected to follow the scale at which multi-core systems go. So you buy a 16 core chip system to upgrade your quad-core based system and hypothetically gain little despite the expense. Power efficencies drop and getting more performance requires more nodes. Additionally, who is to say that clock speeds won't lower if programming models in the mass market change such that distributed workloads are common and single-core performance isn't all that impressive.
All that said, talk beyond 6-core/8-core is mostly grandstanding at this time. As memory architecture for the mass market is not considered as intrinsically exciting, I would wager there will be advancements that no one speaks to. For example, Nehalem leapfrogs AMD memory bandwidth by a large margin (like by a factor of 2). It means if Shanghai parts are considered satisfactory today to get respectable yield memory wise to support four cores, Nehalem, by a particular metric, supports 8 equally satisfactorily. The whole picture is a tad more complicated (i.e. latency, numbers I don't know off hand), but the one metric is a highly important one in the supercomputer field.
For all the worry over memory bandwidth though, it hasn't stopped supercomputer purchasers from buying into Core2 all this time. Despite improvements in their chipset, Intel Core2 still doesn't reach AMD performance. Despite that, people spending money to get into the Top500 still chose to put their money on Core2 in general. Sure, Cray and IBM supercomputers in the Top2 used AMD, but from the time of its release, Core2 has decimated AMD supercomputer market share despite an inferior memory architecture.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Only for Office 2007.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The issue is with a single processor that has multiple cores.
There's no real way to split the banks for each core, so the net effect is that you have 4-32 cores sharing the same lanes for memory.
No, sorry. That's how Phenom processor are *Already* working.
Each physical CPU package has two 64-bit memory controllers, each controlling a separate bank of 64bits DDR-2 memory chips. (Each of the two bank in a dual channel mother board).
Phenom have two mode of function :
- Ganged : both memory controllers work in parallel, working as if they were a huge 128bits memory connection. That's how dual channel has worked since it was invented.
That's good for system running few very bandwidth-hungry applications (for example : benchmarks)
- Unganged : each memory controller work on its own. Thus you have two completely separate 64bits memory channel accessible at the same time. By correctly lying the applications in memory thanks to a NUMA-aware OS (anything better than Windows Vista), that means that two separate applications can simultaneously access each one's memory at the exact same moment, although at only half the bandwith *per process* (but still the same total of bandwidth for all processes running at the same time on a multi core chip).
This is perfect for systems running lots of tasks in parallel, and is the default mode on most BIOSes I've seen.
This gives a tremendous boost to heavily multi-tasked applications (a busy database server, for example), and it's what TFA's author are looking for.
Probably that at some point in the future, Intel will follow the same trend with its QPI processors.
Also, the future trend is to multiply the memory channels on the CPU: Intel has already planned Triple Channel DDR-3 for their high-end server Xeons (the first crop of QPI chips). AMD has announced 4 memory channels for their future 6- and 12- core chips targeting the G34 socket.
So the net effect of Unganged Dual Channel is that today you already have 4 cores having a choice of 2 sets of memory lanes to choose among, and within 1 year, you'll have 6-to-12 cores sharing 4 sets of memory lanes.
By the time you reach 32 cores on CPU, probably that almost each slot will have its own dedicated memory channel (probably with the help of some technology which communicates serially with fewer lines, like FB-DIMM). Or even weirder memory interfaces (who knows ? maybe DDR-6 will be able to give several simultaneous access to the same memory module).
So, well, once again, it proves that running stupid simulations without taking into account that other technologies will improves beside the number of cores* yields stupid non realistic results.
Shame on TFA's Author, because the trends to increase bandwith have already started. I little bit more background research would have avoided this kind of stupidity.
But on the other hand, they would have missed the opportunity to publish an alarmist article with an eye catching title.
--
*: Although, yes, the number of cores you can slap inside the same package seems to be the "new megahertz" in the manufacturers' race, with some like Intel trying to increase this number faster without putting so much efforts on the rest.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems into I/O-bound problems."
-Ken Batcher
It's hardly any secret that CPU speed, even for single core processors, has been running ahead of memory bandwidth gains for years - that's why we have cache, and ever increasing amounts of it. It's also hardly any relevation to realize that if you're sharing your memory bandwidth between multiple cores then the bandwidth available per core is less than if you weren't sharing. Obviously you need to keep the amount of cache per core and the number of cores per machine (or, more precisely, per unit of memory sybsystem bandwidth) within reasonable bounds to keep it usable for general purpose aplications, else you'll end up in GPU-CPU (e.g. CUDA) territory where you're totally memory constrained and applicability is much less universal.
For cluster-based ("supercomputer") applications, partitioning between nodes is always going to be an issue in optimizing performance for a given architecture, and available memory bandwidth per node and per core is obviously a part of that equation. Moreover, even if CPU designers do add more cores per processor than is useful for some applications, no-one is forcing you to use them. The cost per CPU is going to remain approximately fixed, so extra cores per CPU essentially come for free. A library like pthreads, and different implementations of it (coroutine vs LWP based), gives you the flexibility over the mapping of threads to cores, and your overall across-node application partitioning gives you control over how much memory bandwidth per node you need.
The phrase "By logical extension" is just another way of saying "This is a straw man argument"
I believe that the point he was making was not that it's pointless to go beyond X86 hardware, but that it's more cost-effective to use consumer hardware. Consumer hardware is not necessarily X86 hardware. See IBM's Roadrunner, presently the fastest supercomputer in the world, which uses an advanced version of the PS3's processor (the PowerXCell 8i).
In time, we'll probably see demand in consumer hardware for breaking past the boundaries and bottlenecks of multi-core processing, and so supercomputers will follow.
mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
NEc still makes the SX9 vector system, and cray still sells X2 blades that can be installed into their xt5 super. So vector processors are available, they just aren't very popular, mostly due to cost/flop.
A vector processor implements an instruction set that is slightly better than a scalar processor at doing math, considerably worse than a scalar processor at branch-heavy code, but orders of magnitude better in terms of memory bandwidth. The X2, for example, has 4 25gflop cores per node, which share 64 channels of DDR2 memory. Compare that to the newest xeons where 6 12 gflop processors share 3 channels of DDR3 memory. While the vector instruction set is well suited to using this memory bandwidth, a massively multi-core scalar processor could also make use of a 64-channel memory controller.
The problem is about money. These multicore processors are coming from the server industry. web-hosting, database-serving, and middleware crunching jobs tend to be very cache-friendly. Occasionally they benefit from more bandwidth to real memory, but usually they just want a larger L3 cache. Cache is much less useful to supercomputing tasks, which have really large data-sets. The server-processor makers aren't going to add a 64-channel memory controller to server processors; it wouldn't do any good for their primary market, and it would cost a lot.
Of course, you could just buy real vector processors, right? Not exactly. Many supercomputing tasks work acceptably on quad-core processors with 2 memory channels. It's not ideal, but they get along. This has put a lot of negative market pressure on the vector machines, and they are dying away again. It's not clear if cray will make a successor to the X2, and NEC has priced itself into a tiny niche market in weather forcasting, that is unapproachable by other supercomputer users, for price reasons.