Optimal Load Balancing and Assessment of Existing Load Balancing Criteria

Authors: Anthony Boulmier, Nabil Abdennadher, Bastien Chopard

Preprint submitted to the Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing (JPDC), 43 pages, 11 figures, 2 algorithms, 4 tables, 14 equations

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2104.01688v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The summary is not ready yet

Abstract: Parallel iterative applications often suffer from load imbalance, one of the most critical performance degradation factors. Hence, load balancing techniques are used to distribute the workload evenly to maximize performance. A key challenge is to know \textit{when} to use load balancing techniques. In general, this is done through load balancing criteria, which trigger load balancing based on runtime application data and/or user-defined information. In the first part of this paper, we introduce a novel, automatic load balancing criterion derived from a simple mathematical model. In the second part, we propose a branch-and-bound algorithm to find the load balancing iterations that lead to the optimal application performance. This algorithm finds the optimal load balancing scenario in quadratic time while, to the best of our knowledge, this has never been addressed in less than an exponential time. Finally, we compare the performance of the scenarios produced by state-of-the-art load balancing criteria relative to the optimal load balancing scenario in synthetic benchmarks and parallel N-body simulations. In the synthetic benchmarks, we observe that the proposed criterion outperforms the other automatic criteria. In the numerical experiments, we show that our new criterion is, on average, $4.9\%$ faster than state-of-the-art load balancing criteria and can outperform them by up to $17.6\%$. Moreover, we see in the numerical study that the state-of-the-art automatic criteria are at worst $47.4\%$ slower than the optimum and at best $16.5\%$ slower.

Submitted to arXiv on 04 Apr. 2021

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.