git clone https://git.igankevich.com/hpcs-17-subord.git
Log | Files | Refs

commit 2c428126e5b64994b02f9ad1feedc8465d5950f3
parent ca3ff453c8990331b678b93bdd876118bfc034e7
Author: Ivan Gankevich <igankevich@ya.ru>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:37:40 +0300

Add comparison to codelet model.

src/head.tex | 18+++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/head.tex b/src/head.tex @@ -13,6 +13,22 @@ hardware errors or electricity outages. \section{Related work} -\cite{zuckerman2011using} +Computational models similar to kernel hierarchy are described in a number of +papers, but none of them includes hierarchy. + +In~\cite{zuckerman2011using} the authors describe codelet model for exascale +machines. This model breaks a programme into small bits of functionality, +called codelets, and dependencies between them. The programme represents +directed graph, which is called well-behaved if forward progress of the +programme is guaranteed. The feature that distingueshes our research with +respect to some others, is the use of hierarchy as the only possible way of +defining depedencies between objects, into which a programme is decomposed. The +main advantage of hierarchy is trivial handling of object failures. In +contrast, in codelet model hierarchical depedencies are not enforced, and +resilience to failures is provided by object migration and relies on hardware +fault detection mechanisms. Furthermore, execution of kernel hierarchiies in +our model resembles stack-based execution of ordinary programmes: the programme +finishes only when all subordinate kernels of the main kernel finish. So, there +is no need to define well-behaved graph to guarantee programme termination. \cite{meneses2015using}