Paper detail

A Makespan Lower Bound for the Scheduling of the Tiled Cholesky Factorization based on ALAP scheduling

Due to the advent of multicore architectures and massive parallelism, the tiled Cholesky factorization algorithm has recently received plenty of attention and is often referenced by practitioners as a case study. It is also implemented in mainstream dense linear algebra libraries. However, we note that theoretical study of the parallelism of this algorithm is currently lacking. In this paper, we present new theoretical results about the tiled Cholesky factorization in the context of a parallel homogeneous model without communication costs. We use standard flop-based weights for the tasks. For a $t$-by-$t$ matrix, we know that the critical path of the tiled Cholesky algorithm is $9t-10$ and that the weight of all tasks is $t^3$. In this context, we prove that no schedule with less than $0.185 t^2$ processing units can finish in a time less than the critical path. In perspective, a naive bound gives $0.11 t^2.$ We then give a schedule which needs less than $0.25 t^2+0.16t+3$ processing units to complete in the time of the critical path. In perspective, a naive schedule gives $0.50 t^2.$ In addition, given a fixed number of processing units, $p$, we give a lower bound on the execution time as follows: $$\max( \frac{t^{3}}{p}, \frac{t^{3}}{p} - 3\frac{t^2}{p} + 6\sqrt{2p} - 7 , 9t-10).$$ The interest of the latter formula lies in the middle term. Our results stem from the observation that the tiled Cholesky factorization is much better behaved when we schedule it with an ALAP (As Late As Possible) heuristic than an ASAP (As Soon As Possible) heuristic. We also provide scheduling heuristics which match closely the lower bound on execution time. We believe that our theoretical results will help practical scheduling studies. Indeed, our results enable to better characterize the quality of a practical schedule with respect to an optimal schedule.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.