Cited by 66Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques

Performance Optimizations and Bounds for Sparse Matrix-Vector Multiply

Vuduc, R., Demmel, J.W., Yelick, K.A., Kamil, S., Nishtala, R., Lee, B.·2002·ACM/IEEE SC 2002 Conference (SC'02)

Abstract

We consider performance tuning, by code and data structure reorganization, of sparse matrix-vector multiply (SpM×V), one of the most important computational kernels in scientific applications. This paper addresses the fundamental questions of what limits exist on such performance tuning, and how closely tuned code approaches these limits. Specifically, we develop upper and lower bounds on the performance (Mflop/s) of SpM×V when tuned using our previously proposed register blocking optimization. These bounds are based on the non-zero pattern in the matrix and the cost of basic memory operations, such as cache hits and misses. We evaluate our tuned implementations with respect to these bounds using hardware counter data on 4 different platforms and on test set of 44 sparse matrices. We find that we can often get within 20% of the upper bound, particularly on class of matrices from finite element modeling (FEM) problems; on non-FEM matrices, performance improvements of 2× are still possible. Lastly, we present new heuristic that selects optimal or near-optimal register block sizes (the key tuning parameters) more accurately than our previous heuristic. Using the new heuristic, we show improvements in SpM×V performance (Mflop/s) by as much as 2.5× over an untuned implementation. Collectively, our results suggest that future performance improvements, beyond those that we have already demonstrated for SpM×V, will come from two sources: (1) consideration of higher-level matrix struc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/sc.2002.10025

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vuduc, R., Demmel, J. W., Yelick, K. A., Kamil, S., Nishtala, R., & Lee, B.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
ACM/IEEE SC 2002 Conference (SC'02)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2002
Pages
26-26
ISSN
1063-9535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4256588782
Cited by
66
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (SC) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Matrix Theory and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Computer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Keywords
performance bounds, performance tuning, cache misses, finite element matrices, data reuse, sparse matrix kernels, hardware performance counters

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review