Comment:
The “speed-up” formula (i.e., Amdahl’s Law) still a bit confusing?
Follow-up:
First of all, it is important to understand that this formula assumes that a program (or a task, or a job) can be divided into two parts, i.e., sequential part (must be carried out by one single processor only), and parallel part. Most importantly, one key component in the assumption is that the parallel part can be perfectly divided into totally independent (i.e., no communication is required) pieces for different processors to work on.
Consequently, given n processors, we can perfectly speed up the computation of the parallel part by n times. Using the terminology in the presentation slide, the Speedup of enhancement is n. Thus, if the original total execution time of the program using one processor is T and the fraction of sequential part is x, then the new total execution time is:
The first term in the above expression is the time required to execute the sequential part. The second term is the time required to execute the parallel part, using n processors simultaneously. Finally, speed-up, which is defined as the ratio of original time to the new time, is given by:
We can see that perfect speed-up, i.e., n , is achievable only when x = 0 . which means that the whole program is perfectly parallelizable into totally independent pieces. This is a situation not likely to happen in a typical computer program (or any daily life task, for that matter).
Comment:
Is the parallel processing formula (speed-up) really works?
As we assume the processor count tends to infinity, the time for communication should also be in a large scale. Should we consider the running time to be larger? Or the formula just neglects the factor of communication time between processors?
Follow-up:
This is another excellent observation. As mentioned in the Follow-Up to the comment above, in deriving the formula, we assume that the parallel part can be divided up perfectly, without any communication. In a real-life parallel program, of course there will be communications. Thus, in deriving a speed-up formula for such a program, we might need an additional term for the total execution time:
In the above expression, the third term denotes the communication overhead time introduced by parallelization, which grows as (
n x
n) with a multiplicative constant
c. This is not an “artificial” example but really represents some real-life communication overhead that you can find in many practical parallel programs.
What new conclusions can you draw from this new expression?
Comment:
Still quite confused about Slide 14?
Follow-up:
Slide 14 illustrates the need for extra communication overhead when we perform parallel processing. Specifically, in the Main Memory, there is a variable u, which has a value of 5. This variable is needed for some parallel computations to be carried out by three different processors as shown. Now, each processor has to read this variable from the Main Memory into its own memory in order to perform the computation. The problem here is that after P1 and P3 have read the variable u, P3 subsequently modifies its value (from 5 to 7), making different copies of u having different values (an inconsistent situation).
Obviously, inconsistency in shared data variables is unacceptable because it will lead to mistakes. Thus, to rectify the inconsistency, some extra communication has to be carried out. For instance, after P3 modifies u, it has to immediately inform every processor that is currently using u (i.e., having u in its own memory).
Can you think of some other way to handle this inconsistent situation?
