Cited by 16Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesSoftware Engineering Research

Performance Optimization using Multimodal Modeling and Heterogeneous GNN

Open access
Dutta, Akash, Alcaraz, Jordi, TehraniJamsaz, Ali, Cesar, Eduardo, Sikora, Anna, Jannesari, Ali·2023·Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing

Abstract

Growing heterogeneity and configurability in HPC architectures has made auto-tuning applications and runtime parameters on these systems very complex. Users are presented with a multitude of options to configure parameters. In addition to application specific solutions, a common approach is to use general purpose search strategies, which often might not identify the best configurations or their time to convergence is a significant barrier. There is, thus, a need for a general purpose and efficient tuning approach that can be easily scaled and adapted to various tuning tasks. We propose a technique for tuning parallel code regions that is general enough to be adapted to multiple tasks. In this paper, we analyze IR-based programming models to make task-specific performance optimizations. To this end, we propose the Multimodal Graph Neural Network and Autoencoder (MGA) tuner, a multimodal deep learning based approach that adapts Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks and Denoising Autoencoders for modeling IR-based code representations that serve as separate modalities. This approach is used as part of our pipeline to model a syntax, semantics, and structure-aware IR-based code representation for tuning parallel code regions/kernels. We extensively experiment on OpenMP and OpenCL code regions/kernels obtained from PolyBench, Rodinia, STREAM, DataRaceBench, AMD SDK, NPB, NVIDIA SDK, Parboil, SHOC, LULESH, XSBench, RSBench, miniFE, miniAMR, and Quicksilver benchmarks and applications. We apply our multimodal learning techniques to the tasks of (i) optimizing the number of threads, scheduling policy and chunk size in OpenMP loops and, (ii) identifying the best device for heterogeneous device mapping of OpenCL kernels. Our experiments show that this multimodal learning based approach outperforms the state-of-the-art in almost all experiments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3588195.3592984

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LiDAR-based detection processes 3D point cloud data, offering precise depth estimation and spatial structure representation.

    “In contrast, LiDAR-based detection [73,74,75,76,77] processes 3D point cloud data, offering precise depth estimation and spatial structure representation.”

    From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

    Section 2.1 discusses representations of program code, and Section 4.2.2 discusses mapping code to CPUs and GPUs. Searches for LiDAR, 3D point clouds, depth sensing, and object detection found no passage addressing the attributed claim. The retrieved passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 16

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Miltiadis Allamanis, Earl T Barr, Premkumar Devanbu, and Charles Sutton. 2018. A survey of machine learning for big code and naturalness. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51, 4 (2018), 1-37.
  2. Jason Ansel, Shoaib Kamil, Kalyan Veeramachaneni, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, Jeffrey Bosboom, Una-May O'Reilly, and Saman Amarasinghe. 2014. Opentuner: An extensible framework for program autotuning. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Parallel architectures and compilation. 303-316.
  3. E Barszcz, J Barton, L Dagum, P Frederickson, T Lasinski, R Schreiber, V Venkatakrishnan, S Weeratunga, D Bailey, D Browning, et al. 1991. The nas parallel benchmarks. In The International Journal of Supercomputer Applications. Citeseer.
  4. Tianqi Chen, Tong He, Michael Benesty, Vadim Khotilovich, Yuan Tang, Hyunsu Cho, Kailong Chen, et al. 2015. Xgboost: extreme gradient boosting. R package version 0.4-2 1, 4 (2015), 1-4.
  5. Chris Cummins, Zacharias V Fisches, Tal Ben-Nun, Torsten Hoefler, Michael FP O'Boyle, and Hugh Leather. 2021. PROGRAML: A Graph-based Program Repre- sentation for Data Flow Analysis and Compiler Optimizations. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2244-2253.
  6. Dmitry Duplyakin, Robert Ricci, Aleksander Maricq, Gary Wong, Jonathon Duerig, Eric Eide, Leigh Stoller, Mike Hibler, David Johnson, Kirk Webb, Aditya Akella, Kuangching Wang, Glenn Ricart, Larry Landweber, Chip Elliott, Michael Zink, Emmanuel Cecchet, Snigdhaswin Kar, and Prabodh Mishra. 2019. The De- sign and Operation of CloudLab. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC). 1-14. https://www.flux.utah.edu/paper/duplyakin-atc19
  7. Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1263-1272.
  8. Xueyuan Han, Thomas Pasquier, Adam Bates, James Mickens, and Margo Seltzer. 2020. Unicorn: Runtime provenance-based detector for advanced persistent threats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01525 (2020). · arXiv
  9. Yujia Li, Chenjie Gu, Thomas Dullien, Oriol Vinyals, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3835-3845.
  10. John D. McCalpin. 1995. Memory Bandwidth and Machine Balance in Current High Performance Computers. IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Computer Architecture (TCCA) Newsletter (Dec. 1995), 19-25.
  11. John D McCalpin. 1995. Stream benchmark. Link: www. cs. virginia. edu/stream/ref. html# what 22, 7 (1995).
  12. Charith Mendis, Cambridge Yang, Yewen Pu, Dr Amarasinghe, Michael Carbin, et al. 2019. Compiler auto-vectorization with imitation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019).
  13. Philip J Mucci, Shirley Browne, Christine Deane, and George Ho. 1999. PAPI: A portable interface to hardware performance counters. In Proceedings of the department of defense HPCMP users group conference, Vol. 710. Citeseer.
  14. Jiquan Ngiam, Aditya Khosla, Mingyu Kim, Juhan Nam, Honglak Lee, and An- drew Y Ng. 2011. Multimodal deep learning. In ICML.
  15. Louis-Noël Pouchet et al. 2012. Polybench: The polyhedral benchmark suite. URL: http://www. cs. ucla. edu/pouchet/software/polybench 437 (2012), 1-1.
  16. Piyumi Rameshka, Pasindu Senanayake, Thulana Kannangara, Praveen Senevi- ratne, Sanath Jayasena, Tharindu Rusira, and Mary Hall. 2019. Rigel: A Frame- work for OpenMP PerformanceTuning. In 2019 IEEE 21st International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 17th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS). IEEE, 2093-2102.
  17. Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural networks 61 (2015), 85-117.
  18. Benoit Steiner, Chris Cummins, Horace He, and Hugh Leather. 2021. Value learning for throughput optimization of deep learning workloads. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems 3 (2021).
  19. Jianing Sun and Yingxue Zhang. 2019. Multi-graph convolutional neural networks for representation learning in recommendation. In IEEE ICDM.
  20. John R Tramm, Andrew R Siegel, Benoit Forget, and Colin Josey. 2014. Per- formance analysis of a reduced data movement algorithm for neutron cross section data in monte carlo simulations. In International Conference on Exascale Applications and Software. Springer, 39-56.
  21. Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017). · arXiv
  22. S VenkataKeerthy, Rohit Aggarwal, Shalini Jain, Maunendra Sankar Desarkar, Ramakrishna Upadrasta, and YN Srikant. 2020. Ir2vec: Llvm ir based scalable program embeddings. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 17, 4 (2020), 1-27.
  23. Zheng Wang, Georgios Tournavitis, Björn Franke, and Michael FP O'boyle. 2014. Integrating profile-driven parallelism detection and machine-learning-based mapping. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO) 11, 1 (2014), 1-26.
  24. Chad Wood, Giorgis Georgakoudis, David Beckingsale, David Poliakoff, Alfredo Gimenez, Kevin Huck, Allen Malony, and Todd Gamblin. 2021. Artemis: Auto- matic Runtime Tuning of Parallel Execution Parameters Using Machine Learning. In International Conference on High Performance Computing. Springer, 453-472.

Authors
Dutta, A., Alcaraz, J., TehraniJamsaz, A., Cesar, E., Sikora, A., & Jannesari, A.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Venue
Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-08-07
Pages
45-57
OpenAlex
W4385623060
Cited by
16
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing (HPDC) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2020-113614RB-C21)
  • NSF (National Science Foundation) (2211982)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Embedded Systems Design Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
auto-tuning, heterogeneous graph neural networks, multimodal graph neural networks, denoising autoencoder, parallel code optimization

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